## Bald Guy Predicts Record Low Arctic Ice

http://arctic-roos.org/

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

### 39 Responses to Bald Guy Predicts Record Low Arctic Ice

1. dmmcmah says:

It’s funny how they show the “angry denier” when its them that are all bent out of shape. Look at Romm’s cartoon picture he looks like one pissed off dude.

2. Julienne Stroeve says:

I think it’s going to be very close. Ice loss is continuing at a relatively fast pace..

20110810 = 5.9088000
20110811 = 5.8840300
20110812 = 5.8079800
20110813 = 5.6674200
20110814 = 5.5589500

• Paul H says:

How do these figures compare to 2007, Julienne?

• Julienne Stroeve says:

2007, 08, 10, 5.59993,
2007, 08, 11, 5.57784,
2007, 08, 12, 5.51615,
2007, 08, 13, 5.45393,
2007, 08, 14, 5.38385,

• Julienne,

Looking at satellite photos, I don’t see any evidence that a lot of ice is melting.

• Ill wind blowing says:

“Looking at satellite photos, I donโt see any evidence that a lot of ice is melting.”

Last year when you looked at some off the beaten path ice extent images you “couldn’t see any evidence that” the Northwest Passage was close to opening. In fact you sounded somewhat irritable. ๐

• Ill wind blowing says:

Here’s some of the evidence that can’t be seen.

• So how much are you betting on a record low?

3. Scott says:

I’m currently at 4445978 km^2 for the JAXA daily minimum…close to halfway between 2007 and 2008.

What it really comes down to is how much you believe the area metric. 2011 is currently a touch over 2007 according to CT’s area metric, making it a tight race if you’re sold on the area metric. For those that think there are more melt ponds being identified as open water this year relative to previous years, then 2011 should stay well above 2007.

By the way, where are those objective individuals that repeatedly pointed out that 2011’s area was record low now that it’s above 2007’s for the same day (even if only one day)? Because they are so objective, shouldn’t they have pointed this out?

-Scott

• Paul H says:

I think that Tony is busy juggling. I don’t think Ill feels very well.

• Scott says:

I don’t recall Tony repeatedly pointing to the area measurements…

4. Anything is possible says:

A cruder analysis than Scott’s, based on the post August 15th. ice melt since 2006 brings me out at 4,481,133km^2 (+/- 170,000km^2).

Much will depend on the weather, but I think the odds are against a new “record” minimum at this stage.

• Evan priovolos says:

According to GFS, it’s looking a LOT colder than it has been up there starting around august 25

5. gator69 says:

I predict Joe’s warped head will be hair free within 10 years. The only hair left will be in his head.

• Ill wind blowing says:

I predict that half of all men will be bald sooner or later.

• Me says:

6. Wouldn’t one expect this with a predominant negative AO/NAO pattern that has been in place for months? The negative AO/NAO pattern, which is supported by a positive AMO state in the Atlantic would certainly account for the lack of sea ice in the Arctic given the atmospheric pattern. As such, since the positive AMO pattern and the overall negative state of the AO/NAO has been in place for the past several years, one would expect similar observations to 2007 and other years leading up to now. So my question is, how much of this lost ice a result of nature influences compared to man-made influences? Further, what were the observations of sea ice in the Arctic in the 1930’s and 40’s during another strong positive AMO regime? Thanks!

• Paul H says:

Also, Steve, ice can disappear pretty quickly whether by melting or by being blown out of the Arctic. To replace it is a much longer process.

• Scott says:

And that’s the key point – attribution. Manmade GHGs have not definitely been tied to ice loss…it’s just assumed by the alarmists. I don’t doubt that there has been some effect, but I’m guessing it’s much less than assumed. If the Arctic rebounds, there’s going to be massive egg on their faces as this is pretty much the only supposed CAGW effect that has actually been observed and potentially even worse than predicted.

-Scott

• omnologos says:

the mechanism is simple..
they wait until something dramatic happens, then they attribute it to AGW.

If then it doesn’t happen again (1998, 2003, hurricanes) they wait for something else.

All they have to do is use the magic words “no single event can be ascribed to AGW but scientists agree that we should expect more (whatever) ”

I think ultimately that’s where the dishonesty truly lies.

• glacierman says:

Scott says: “Manmade GHGs have not definitely been tied to ice lossโฆitโs just assumed by the alarmists.”

They not only assume it, their models are biased toward it. The models are programmed to attribute X warming to Y CO2 based on feedbacks that have not been quantified – they can’t even show if the feedbacks are positive or negative, but they model away don’t they? They know what the world should be doing (according to them) so whenever something doesn’t come out as expected (Trenberth’s missing heat for instance, or the lack of warming in accordance with Hansen’s scenarios) it has to be something caused by Man(n) i.e. non existant aerosols, or the “heat” must be hiding deep in the oceans just waiting to rear it’s ugly head because everyone knows warm liquids sink.

I think this era of post-normal science will be studied for years once the scientific world is returned from witchcraft to the scientific method.

• Ill wind blowing says:

“Manmade GHGs have not definitely been tied to ice lossโฆitโs just assumed by the alarmists.”

That’s because you jump from A to Z skipping the letters in between.

“If the Arctic rebounds, thereโs going to be massive egg on their faces as this is pretty much the only supposed CAGW effect that has actually been observed and potentially even worse than predicted.”

It’s not going to rebound on a decade by decade basis. Just short term fluctuations of 1 or 2 years-unless Mount Tambora stages a resurrection. And there are other observed effects. They’re just easier to _ _ _ _.

As for egg on your faces, you never seem to notice it.

• Scott says:

Ill wind blowing says:
August 17, 2011 at 5:35 am

โManmade GHGs have not definitely been tied to ice lossโฆitโs just assumed by the alarmists.โ

Thatโs because you jump from A to Z skipping the letters in between.

Is that the best you have IWB? Please show me the science making the proper attribution instead of just cutesy sayings. Good luck.

โIf the Arctic rebounds, thereโs going to be massive egg on their faces as this is pretty much the only supposed CAGW effect that has actually been observed and potentially even worse than predicted.โ

Itโs not going to rebound on a decade by decade basis. Just short term fluctuations of 1 or 2 years-unless Mount Tambora stages a resurrection. And there are other observed effects. Theyโre just easier to _ _ _ _.

Interesting, I see you’ve not just predetermined the outcome of the experiment (the ice will disappear), but you’ve also written up the conclusions (due to CO2). Either you’re not a scientist or you’re a really bad one because you have no objectivity. For those of us that are real scientists doing operational science in the lab, we’ve learned that letting our presuppositions guide our interpretations easily leads to problems. Still hard to avoid doing so, but at least we don’t make the blunder when it’s that obvious.

Also, what other observed effects are you mentioning? I notice the lack of any detail. Here’s the only one – average global temperatures have increased. Unfortunately for you, it’s not as much as expected. And you may point to the increase as you being right qualitatively, but I can do the same since I’m expecting an increase of ~1.1 C/doubling of CO2. Currently, that expectation is as close to the observations as the IPPC AR4’s value of 3 C/doubling. Count in any natural warming coming out of the LIA or the possibility of UHI contaminating the record and I’m a lot closer.

As for egg on your faces, you never seem to notice it.

The same could be said for your kind. How’s Lake Powell? Or for that matter all the other reservoirs in that drainage system? Lake Powell is near normal, and only Lake Mead is low…all the upstream reservoirs are at or above normal levels even with higher-than-average outflows. But I don’t see the people who were pointing to those reservoirs several years ago cleaning up the egg off their faces b/c they’re either ignoring it or blaming it on lake-effect snow from the Great Salt Lake (LOL).

And please show me where instance where I (a) totally blew it, (b) didn’t fess up, and (c) therefore ended up with unnoticed egg on my face. I’m sure you can point out the above for some others here, but good luck pointing it out for me.

-Scott

7. I recommend a good read of the history of Romm’s wiki page. Apparently even Connolley couldn’t stop Romm from being defined a “climate expert” and “scientist” on the basis of stuff written by journalists.

• papertiger says:

That’s hilarious. Even Connolley thinks Romm is a squid dick.

lol – SSilvers would be Joe’s mother, but that’s unref .

• omnologos says:

We are down now to trying to find out the one occasion when Romm defined himself as “climate expert” (rather than, say, quote a journalist saying that). So far it’s absolute nil.

• omnologos says:

Now another “contributor” is stating that we cannot take Romm’s word for where his expertise lies. Oh, boy! I have replied that Wikipedia does take Schmidt and Raypierre’s words (and day jobs). Also, nobody has been able to find anything written by Romm about “climate” that is not also about “climate change” (Wikipedia itself states as much), so how can he be a “climate expert” instead of a “climate change expert”?

I am starting to feel the guy has some kind of cult following around him, with obsessed Wikipedia editors controlling His Holy Image. That’s weird.

8. Julienne Stroeve says:

Steve, just looking at the photos can be somewhat deceiving. Best to actually compute the ice area/extent by using the true ice-area per pixel together with the ice cover to see how the ice area/extent is changing from day-to-day. Even so, looking at the satellite data does indicate to me that there is still open water developing within the ice pack. Since I still expect there to be further bottom melt even as the air temperatures start to cool, and the ice pack in the Beaufort/Chukchi and E. Siberian seas remains rather diffuse, I think it’s too soon to say 2011 is out of the running with 2007.

• Ill wind blowing says:

Julienne; it seems we all lose sight of the big picture when focusing on the small stuff..

What do you think would have happened to the ice cap today if solar insolation had not started its steep drop in 2002?

What do you think will happen to the ice cap 10 years from now?

• gator69 says:

I’ll take this one. Ice will melt in summer and water will freeeze in winter. That will not change in 10 or 10 million years. Ice melts, water freezes. Winter, Spring, Summer and Fall. Repeat.

9. Dave N says:

Apparently the best way to deal with “deniers” is to make steam come out of your ears, and hold a fist, ready to punch something. Oh, and don’t forget to use the “BS” word…

10. Andy WeissDC says:

Looks like it’s headed to a perfect middle of the pack finish. Anyone trying to make much out of it is kidding themselves.

11. drewski says:

What do satellite photos tell you of ice volume? By all accounts the arctic has entered its death spiral and woe be to us.

• suyts says:

The sooner the better! Once that happens people can then focus their energies and attention to something of relevance and substance.

• NoMoreGore says:

Yes, I can feel the death now. And the spiral, too. The end is nigh. Wanna buy a magic rock?

12. suyts says:

Steven Dimartino says:
August 16, 2011 at 6:51 pm

Further, what were the observations of sea ice in the Arctic in the 1930โฒs and 40โฒs during another strong positive AMO regime? Thanks!
=========================================

Steven, when discussing arctic ice with alarmists, time didn’t start until 1979.

They grew grain crops in Greenland for quite some time…….. it is highly probable the arctic ice was nonexistent during that time.

Its really a bizarre phenomena to witness. Every year we dance to this ritual, each time people pretend none of this ever happened before…… in reality, it happens over and over again. I’ve witness unprecedented ice loss for several decades now…….

• NoMoreGore says:

It will remain unprecedented loss until it becomes unprecedented gain, and then all hope will be lost…..again.