Response Time Of Climate Scientists Identified

Seven years ago, I wrote this article in The Register

ScreenHunter_8789 Apr. 28 22.16Arctic ice refuses to melt as ordered • The Register

Walt Meier and Mark Death Spiral Serreze got hysterical over this and started trashing “breathtakingly ignorant” me all over the Internet. I went back and forth with NSIDC people for years pointing out how ridiculous their forecasts and analysis is.

Seven years and tens of millions of dollars later, climate scientists finally begin to figure it out.

ScreenHunter_8788 Apr. 28 22.10

Research Highlight: Arctic Sea Ice Loss Likely To Be Reversible | Scripps Institution of Oceanography, UC San Diego

About stevengoddard

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

38 Responses to Response Time Of Climate Scientists Identified

  1. Gail Combs says:

    ClimAstrologists take longer to learn than a puppy being house broke….

    The real questions is ———-

    Can you housebreak a ClimAstrologist?

  2. Marsh says:

    Spot on Tony , I do not accept that these people predicting such nonsense are true Scientists.
    As we all know ; true Science is about taking a middle ground stance whereby the foundation is speculation & “absolute evidence” is unfounded ! I also appreciate your frustration ; we shouldn’t have to suffer such fools ; especially all of Society… yes, it’s time to Name & Shame!

    • Gail Combs says:

      When you think of the time, money, resources and brain power wasted on this scam it is truly mind boggling!

      Society as a whole could of dragged the thrid world kicking and screamming into the 21st century. Instead we are headed back into the Dark Ages as all of science becomes Lysenkoism.

  3. stewart pid says:

    Tony I don’t think that Reggie’s blow torch has been taken into account …. once ol’ Reggie finally gets that blow torch started the ice will be history in a flash 😉

  4. Lance says:

    Pretty soon, they will say they were mis-represented by the media and that they never meant/said it …coming to a theater near you….

  5. Dave N says:

    “oversimplified”?

    They misspelled: “just plain wrong”

  6. sunsettommy says:

    The comments in the Register, were often dismissive of you Steve. Now that it has been nearly 7 years since then,it appears that the Arctic Ice cover has been on the rebound ever since.

    LOL

  7. ossqss says:

    Didn’t we have a large Arctic cyclone in 2007 that helped things along?

    I have several links on the Fram strait sea ice transport associated with the 2007 storm that no longer work?

    Go figure, disappearing like the actual temperature records from 40’s blip and data on the MWP……….

    • Taphonomic says:

      I believe that that was 2012 not 2007. There are multiple web articles on the Great Arctic Cyclone of 2012, including Wikipedia. Of course, Wikipedia being Wikipedia cites an article that claims the storm had nothing to do with the low sea ice.

  8. gator69 says:

    Arctic Sea Ice Loss Likely To Be Reversible

    But our lost fortunes are not.

    • Gail Combs says:

      Tell me about it. We lost about a half mil and almost lost our home too. The amount of wealth vacuumed up by the elite and the growth of wealth that has been stunted is truly beyond comprehension.

      I think that is what makes me the angriest, the loss society as a whole has sustained because a bunch of luddite scaredy cats has dragged us all down.

  9. iurockhead says:

    Tens of millions of dollars later? I think that is a gross underestmate. Hundreds of millions is probably more realistic.

    • Gail Combs says:

      More like hundreds of billions if you were to add it all up.

      • Marsh says:

        The Alarming Cost Of Climate Change Hysteria…. is costing in the trillions…….
        This was taken from a news site a few years old but gives an idea of the magnitude of
        the Cost in taking everything into account ; particularly extra costs to Industry in USA:

        The Small Business Administration estimates that compliance with such regulations costs the U.S. economy more than $1.75 trillion per year — about 12%-14% of GDP, and half of the $3.456 trillion Washington is currently spending. The Competitive Enterprise Institute believes the annual cost is closer to $1.8 trillion when an estimated $55.4 billion regulatory administration plus the policing budget…

        The finding ignored a contrary conclusion in EPA’s own “Internal Study on Climate” that: “Given the downward trend in temperatures since 1998 (which some think will continue until at least 2030), there is no particular reason to rush into decisions based upon a scientific hypothesis that does not appear to explain most of the available data.”

        • Marsh says:

          A Question often presented : what if this Money was available for REAL problems??
          maybe Science would have a Cure for Cancer / perhaps Poverty would be curtailed /
          industries would probably be more Profitable and better able to Employ more staff…
          There are numerous ways in which the Nation would be better off… but for a Scam !!

  10. darrylb says:

    In the Scripps paper, the authors are suggesting that if the greenhouse gases go back down then the melting is reversible.
    They are adding seasonal changes and change in heat transport from the equator to the poles.
    into longstanding models. I think they are still coming up short.
    The oceans are in continual, oscillations between warm and cold phases. The length in time of the oscillations are currently highly unpredictable.
    The Atlantic multidecadel oscillation is currently changing to a cold phase.
    Evidence of change can be seen in the North Atlantic and that is where more sea ice is hanging around for longer periods of time.

  11. Pathway says:

    Government cannot create wealth, it can only take your wealth at gun point and give it to people who produce nothing. ie climate scientists.

  12. Eliza says:

    Looks like Cryosphere today has stopped putting up unfavourable graphs for 3 weeks now. Probably to prevent people seeing the growth in ice extent for the Paris AGW crowd. Does anybody know where to get reliable ANTARCTIC data? Its quite like CT will fiddle the data if they have to.

  13. David Blake says:

    The mind boggles:

    “We found that two key physical processes, which were often overlooked in previous process models, were actually essential for accurately describing whether sea ice loss is reversible,” said Eisenman, a professor of climate dynamics at Scripps Oceanography.

    [[Oh cool! What are these two processes? I guess they must be pretty complicated highfalutin things – stuff that’s easy to overlook, even when you throw hundreds of scientists and billions of dollars at the problem….

    Err, no, actually…]]

    “One relates to how heat moves from the tropics to the poles and the other is associated with the seasonal cycle. None of the relevant previous process modeling studies had included both of these factors, which led them to spuriously identify a tipping point that did not correspond to the real world.”

    [[So the ijits missed the absolute, absolute, basics and tens of thousands of other scientists just went along with it…!]]

    • Jason Calley says:

      If they missed it, it must have been on purpose, and not because of lack of scientific understanding. How do I know? Because the science is settled.

  14. Barrowice says:

    No sign of an ice break-up at Barrow Point anytime soon! http://feeder.gina.alaska.edu/webcam-uaf-barrow-seaice-images/current/image

  15. gregole says:

    Steven,

    He who laughs last, laughs best.

    2007 were halcyon days for the warmista with the low Arctic ice minimum. But it wasn’t really all that “low” if you think about it for a minute. After all, what is a “low” Arctic ice minimum? Low compared to what exactly. Seemed to me there was plenty of ice even at the so-called low.

    And so what if there is someday no Arctic ice at the minimum? No one has provided me any kind of rational, thorough explanation as to why we absolutely need to have a small continent of ice at the Arctic in September. I don’t think anyone knows. We can guess. And that’s ok with me from a purely intellectual standpoint – it’s kind of a thinker’s question.

    But predicting absence of ice due to Man-Made CO2 and predicting that this somehow equates to some sort of horrible catastrophe is beyond silly. Recent history has proven that these so-called climate scientists were either incompetent or lying. I’d like to think they are just biased and a little stupid, but I fear it is worse. And that thought sickens me.

    To think these people are practicing “scientists” being paid by our tax dollars. I so wish there were some way we could de-fund them all. This nonsense has gone on too long.

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