NSIDC Can’t Forecast Arctic Ice Direction For Next Week, But They Can 20 Years In The Future

NSIDC announced on July 25 that the Arctic cyclone was going to make the ice disappear.

Summer cyclone chewing up Canada’s Arctic sea ice

July 25, 2013

Back when the sea was thick and lasted for years, cyclones tended to spread the ice out and actually increase its extent, said Julienne Stroeve of the National Snow and Ice Data Center in Boulder, Colo. Now, when ice gets spread out, it simply breaks up and disappears.

“As our ice cover has thinned, some of our old rules are changing,” said Stroeve.

Summer cyclone chewing up Canada’s Arctic sea ice | CTV News

The ice had a different idea though, and did the exact opposite of what NSIDC said it was doing.

ScreenHunter_1055 Sep. 29 05.47

COI | Centre for Ocean and Ice | Danmarks Meteorologiske Institut

Arctic sea ice is almost back into the 1979-2000 normal range, and NSIDC insists that it is on track to disappear soon.

About stevengoddard

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

54 Responses to NSIDC Can’t Forecast Arctic Ice Direction For Next Week, But They Can 20 Years In The Future

  1. Since when is 1979-2000 a normal range? They should use 1900-2000 as a normal range.

    • gator69 says:

      There are no ‘normals’ in climate, only averages over time. I confronted my state climatologist over this issue, and he no longer uses ‘normal’ when describing climate. He who controls the language controls thought.

  2. Bill says:

    I assume you’ve e-mailed this graphic to Julienne?

  3. Atowermadeofcheese says:

    1 standard deviation is not ‘normal range’. And that is assuming we are even in it which we arn’t. Its interesting you claim all this recovery stuff, and yet the min arctic sea ice is still ~2SDs below average. In 10 years time when its still >2SDs below average what will you be claiming?

    • Stop posting nonsense please

    • Latitude says:

      In 10 years time when its still >2SDs below average what will you be claiming?..

      …that it’s the real average

      • Atowermadeofcheese says:

        So you are saying that if every year is continually at about 2SDs below the mean, that it is then ‘average’. No that is a downward trend, a pretty dramatic one circa 10% per decade extent wise.

        • What I am saying is that the Arctic is kicking alarmist’s butts and there is a lot of wailing and gnashing of teeth going on.

        • Latitude says:

          …and whatever it is in 20 years…will be the new 20 year average
          …no different than the way they measure the 20 year average now

          If satellites and the way they measure sea ice wasn’t discovered until 5 years ago…
          …ice would be perfectly normal right now

          If they way wasn’t discovered for 50 more years..
          …the average would be whatever it is 50 years from now

  4. Atowermadeofcheese says:

    1981-2010 average! I thought we were talking about 1971-2000. Sigh…

  5. Atowermadeofcheese says:

    Lol, one year after the lowest extent/volume/area/thickness on record and its all “arctic is kicking alarmist butts”. Yeh…no it isn’t. We are still 2SDs below the 1970-2000 average, and several million kilometers shy of normal. This is on the back of the 6th lowest sea ice min on record despite the best weather conditions since 1996. I think you’ll find its you that is wailing.

    • gator69 says:

      “…1970-2000 average, and several million kilometers shy of normal.”

      1970-2000 average, a few billion years shy of reality. 😆

      • Atowermadeofcheese says:

        Then you lot don’t need to deny the trend is pointing firmly down.

        • gator69 says:

          Which trend, my cherry loving friend?

          “A peer-reviewed paper published in the Canadian Journal of Earth Sciences finds that Arctic sea ice extent at the end of the 20th century was more extensive than most of the past 9000 years. The paper also finds that Arctic sea ice extent was on a declining trend over the past 9000 years, but recovered beginning sometime over the past 1000 years and has been relatively stable and extensive since.”

          Holocene fluctuations in Arctic sea-ice cover: dinocyst-based reconstructions for the eastern Chukchi Sea Canadian Journal of Earth Sciences, 45: 1377-1397

          4.5 billion years is a long time junior, and much of it was ice free.

          Ice melts, big deal.

  6. Atowermadeofcheese says:

    No one is denying that long term natural variability exists. Equally there is strong evidence that AGW is at least partly responsible for long term decadal decrease in sea ice.

    • gator69 says:

      What strong evidence? The IPCC admits to having a “low” to “very low” understanding of about 80% of KNOWN climate forcings.

      They are virtually clueless.

    • Latitude says:

      that’s getting harder to sell…when temps haven’t changed or gone up in ~15 years

      And CO2 levels are at the point where it has the most effect…
      CO2 was at a level where it should have had the most powerful effect…
      ..and temps stopped and declined a little

  7. Atowermadeofcheese says:

    Then why do you feel it necessary to make stuff up about the arctic. Its very clear the direction that is heading in.

    • Latitude says:

      how often do you win the lottery?

    • gator69 says:

      “A peer-reviewed paper published in the Canadian Journal of Earth Sciences finds that Arctic sea ice extent at the end of the 20th century was more extensive than most of the past 9000 years. The paper also finds that Arctic sea ice extent was on a declining trend over the past 9000 years, but recovered beginning sometime over the past 1000 years and has been relatively stable and extensive since.”

      Can you read?

      • Atowermadeofcheese says:

        Yes long term natural variability. No one is claiming that isn’t real. Whats the point here?

        • Latitude says:

          that “normal” and “average” are nothing more than a product of technology….
          If the technology to measure all of these things had been invented 1000, 500, even 100 year ago..
          …we would be talking about a completely different normal and average

        • gator69 says:

          In your world, does 2+2 still equal 4?

  8. Atowermadeofcheese says:

    No, climate averages are fairly standard. Usually the time period is three decades, HADCET uses a tri decadal average for instance. Averages over the last billions of years are far less useful for documenting AGW induced arctic melt because of large natural variability such as orbital forcing and large geological changes. We would still, most likely, be using a tri decadal average even if the satellite record went back 100 or so years. And yes the sea ice is not ‘normal’ we are continually seeing the extent following a linear trend of -10% per decade. Non linear trends suggest an even quicker melt in subsequent years.

    • gator69 says:

      You still have not given evidence for AGW. And the IPCC is still ignorant about forcings. Are you thick?

      Please provide even one peer reviewed paper that refutes natural variability as the cause of recent, or any, global climate changes.

      2+2 still equals 4 in my world. Got new math?

    • Latitude says:

      No, climate averages are fairly standard….

      Of course, based on when the technology was available to measure it..

      What would the “average” be if the technology had been there 1000 years ago?
      …what would the “average” be if the technology was only there 200 years ago?
      100 years ago?

      What would the average be, if the technology had not been invented until 50 years from now? even 100 years from now?

      We would be hysterical about a competely different average, and probably for a completely different reason.

      Do you realize you would get a completely different average each time?

  9. Atowermadeofcheese says:

    “In your world, does 2+2 still equal 4?” Not going to respond to crap like this. Anyone with any exposure to the internet has come across these unoriginal sarcastic one liners. They even have autobots which can generate them now. If you have something worthwhile to say, say it.

    • gator69 says:

      ROFLMAO!!!

      There is much to which you fail to respond! 😆

      • Atowermadeofcheese says:

        Care to be specific?

        • gator69 says:

          Sure.

          ““A peer-reviewed paper published in the Canadian Journal of Earth Sciences finds that Arctic sea ice extent at the end of the 20th century was more extensive than most of the past 9000 years. The paper also finds that Arctic sea ice extent was on a declining trend over the past 9000 years, but recovered beginning sometime over the past 1000 years and has been relatively stable and extensive since.”

          Holocene fluctuations in Arctic sea-ice cover: dinocyst-based reconstructions for the eastern Chukchi Sea Canadian Journal of Earth Sciences, 45: 1377-1397

          4.5 billion years is a long time junior, and much of it was ice free.”

          And…

          “What strong evidence? The IPCC admits to having a “low” to “very low” understanding of about 80% of KNOWN climate forcings.

          They are virtually clueless.”

          And…

          “You still have not given evidence for AGW. And the IPCC is still ignorant about forcings. Are you thick?

          Please provide even one peer reviewed paper that refutes natural variability as the cause of recent, or any, global climate changes.”

          I will allow Lat to fill in his questions that you ignored.

        • Latitude says:

          Care to be specific?…

          A simple yes or no answer will do…..

  10. Atowermadeofcheese says:

    Yes

    1) Since I am not denying the existence of natural variability, I am not sure what response you expect. I do not disagree with the paper.

    2) Can you provide a citation to that ‘low’ to ‘very low’ understanding claim and I’ll get back to you.

    3) Just one? Well this paper seems to be addressing the question you are most interested in. http://www.pnas.org/content/106/38/16120.short
    But seriously, there is a 97% consensus that AGW is real.

    • gator69 says:

      1- You almost get it.

      2- “2.9.1 Uncertainties in Radiative Forcing”

      When it comes to understanding climate drivers, 13 out of 16 forcings are listed as ‘low’ to ‘very low’ in 2.9.1 Uncertainties in Radiative Forcing of AR4.

      3- You just refenced a model. Just how does one model that which one does not understand.

      The bogus 97% claim is based upon 77 cherry picked scientists, out of over 10,000 that were surveyed.

      But seriously, very very seriously, you really have much to learn.

      Care to try again? I only need ONE peer reviewed paper that refutes NV.

      • gator69 says:

        And to make point #2 even more embarrassing for the IPCC and their failed models, I should make it clear that they have a “low” to “very low” understanding of 80% of KNOWN climate forcings.

      • Atowermadeofcheese says:

        You are strawmanning me. When did I ever say I did not believe in natural variability. Why would I wan’t to refute something as obvious as creationist ignorance. No where did I ever claim NV doesn’t exist, I have no idea where that came from. And no the 97% claim is not based on 77 cherry picked papers, the papers sampled were ones that specifically expressed an opinion on the subject of AGW, they were not cherry picked to achieve any particular result according to confirmation bias, nor was it arbitrary. “Just how does one model that which one does not understand.” I do not even understand the grammar of this criticism. If you have a specific problem with the source I provided, name it. I’m not going to bow down to these wave hand dismissals.

        • Latitude says:

          I always heard it was hand waving….

          anywho, I asked you a specific question several times…

          Do you realize you would get a completely different average each time?

        • gator69 says:

          You said, “But seriously, there is a 97% consensus that AGW is real.”

          And I referenced the Dorn survey, regarding a 97% consensus, which was indeed as I indicated, a cherry picking of respondents.

          What you meant to reference was a claim by Cook, that 97% of papers written on the subject of climate change say that man is responsible. That is also a bogus claim, but because you are incurious and only look form confirmation of your beliefs, you are clueless.

          http://wattsupwiththat.com/?s=97%25

          “Just how does one model that which one does not understand.” I do not even understand the grammar of this criticism.”

          Is English your second language? 😆

    • Latitude says:

      Do you realize you would get a completely different average each time?

      • gator69 says:

        He does not even realize that every alarmist claim the IPCC makes is based upon models, models that do not have anywhere near enough data to produce realistic outcomes.

        Another alarmobot.

  11. Atowermadeofcheese says:

    I’ve read the cook et al paper. If you have a criticism of it, then I would ask you to point it out specifically. “Just how does one model that which one does not understand.” You complain about my English. I don’t even know if this is a statement or a question, either way its incoherent to the point of being unintelligible.

    • Latitude says:

      all of the models are total failures….no question…no discussion

      I asked you if you understood what I had said…you have not answered

      ===

      What would the “average” be if the technology had been there 1000 years ago?
      …what would the “average” be if the technology was only there 200 years ago?
      100 years ago?

      What would the average be, if the technology had not been invented until 50 years from now? even 100 years from now?

      We would be hysterical about a competely different average, and probably for a completely different reason.

      Do you realize you would get a completely different average each time?

    • gator69 says:

      So you chose not to read the references at the link I provided. Confirmation bias confirmed! 😆

      From a peer reviewed paper that you could have read yourself…

      “Only 41 out of the 11,944 published climate papers Cook examined explicitly stated that Man caused most of the warming since 1950. Cook himself had flagged just 64 papers as explicitly supporting that consensus, but 23 of the 64 had not in fact supported it.”

      How are your math skills? Does 2+2 not equal 4 in your world? Read the rest of the refutations yourself, I’m not here to spoon feed you.

      Try having your mother read this to you. ‘How does one model that which one does not understand?’ Does the question mark help?

      Self imposed ignorance is an ugly thing. Cook cooked the books for his paper and you are one of his useful idiots.

      • Atowermadeofcheese says:

        A WUWT link is not a scientific journal article. Have you read the actual cook et al paper? And adding a question mark to that incoherent statement/question w/e only goes so far to make it any clearer. Just how does one model that which one does not understand.” If you really want to turn this into a conversation about grammer then fine. Justify your use of two subjects and one verb.

        • squid2112 says:

          @Atowermadeofcheese,

          Go back to school dear boy. Let me help you out…

          How does one model, that which one does not understand?

          Translation: How do you model something that you do not understand?

          Apparently, English is your second language.

        • gator69 says:

          Abrainmadeofcheese, I provided a link that would connect you with numerous refutations of Cook’s claim, including this peer reviewed scientific paper…

          “Abstract:
          Agnotology is the study of how ignorance arises via circulation of misinformation calculated to mislead. Legates et al. (Sci Educ 22:2007–2017, 2013) had questioned the applicability of agnotology to politically-charged debates. In their reply, Bedford and Cook (Sci Educ 22:2019–2030, 2013), seeking to apply agnotology to climate science, asserted that fossil-fuel interests had promoted doubt about a climate consensus. Their definition of climate ‘misinformation’ was contingent upon the post-modernist assumptions that scientific truth is discernible by measuring a consensus among experts, and that a near unanimous consensus exists. However, inspection of a claim by Cook et al. (Environ Res Lett 8:024024, 2013) of 97.1 % consensus, heavily relied upon by Bedford and Cook, shows just 0.3 % endorsement of the standard definition of consensus: that most warming since 1950 is anthropogenic. Agnotology, then, is a two-edged sword since either side in a debate may claim that general ignorance arises from misinformation allegedly circulated by the other. Significant questions about anthropogenic influences on climate remain. Therefore, Legates et al. appropriately asserted that partisan presentations of controversies stifle debate and have no place in education.”

          http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs11191-013-9647-9

          As I stated above, self imposed ignorance is a truly ugly thing to behold, and you have confirmed your confirmation bias.

          For God’s sake, you cannot even read a simple sentence, so I am not shocked that you buy into the ignorance of Cook et al. 😆

          If you had bothered to read and learn, you would have also seen Bjorn Lomborg rejecting Cook’s paper. Bjorn is a believer in AGW, and a Nobel Laureate.

          Thanks for confirming your vast ignorance on climate change. Found that ONE paper yet? 😆

    • squid2112 says:

      Seriously? You are going to try to defend the Cook consensus scam here?

      Oh dear boy… Folks that frequent this blog are much smarter than that. You will lose this discussion embarrassingly. There have been a plethora of writings and analysis (far more than deserving) of the Cook bullshit paper. Have you read any of it? Have you even bothered to take a look at the legitimacy of that paper? Do you suppose there could be a problem, when authors of papers that Cook has cited as claiming AGW have, themselves, come out adamantly refuting Cook’s claims? Author’s of his own supposed support are refuting him. Wake the hell up kid!

      Please, take this opportunity to go educate yourself and come back in a few years,when you are ready, and we can continue these discussions.

  12. tom0mason says:

    “…it simply breaks up and disappears.”
    Disappears by magic…

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google 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