Scientific American Calls For An Ice-Free Arctic In 12 Weeks

ScreenHunter_2253 Jun. 05 07.29ScreenHunter_2251 Jun. 05 07.27 Arctic Sea Ice: What, Why, and What Next – Guest Blog – Scientific American Blog Network

Arctic sea ice is closely tracking 2006, the summer with the highest minimum of the past decade.

ScreenHunter_2250 Jun. 05 07.02

Ocean and Ice Services | Danmarks Meteorologiske Institut

Arctic sea ice is also the thickest it has been since 2006, which means that the ice has been getting thicker over the past eight years

Bpiomas_plot_daily_heff.2sst (4)

Bpiomas_plot_daily_heff.2sst.png (2488×1960)

Scientific American blocks all of my comments, because they are a propaganda organization – not a scientific one.

About stevengoddard

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

28 Responses to Scientific American Calls For An Ice-Free Arctic In 12 Weeks

  1. Centinel2012 says:

    Reblogged this on Centinel2012 and commented:
    They are just setting the stage for COP21 but they should change the name of their rag from Scientific American to Propaganda American.

    • Steven, this latest NOAA Revision has been all over the Web… what is your analysis??

      The same folks who wouldn’t acknowledge the “pause” seem deadset in analyzing it.. disproving it..

      NOAA Study Details:

      Of note.. if I read this right… they take huge datasets (a mere 15% of Ocean covered) and simply apply a -.12 C offset… that’s not very scientific.. a huge bias introduced here… the difference between ship data and bouys… I wonder what other “offsets” or bias is involved…

      “First, several studies have examined the differences between buoy- and ship-based data, noting that the ship data are systematically warmer than the buoy data (15–17). This is particularly important, as much of the sea surface is now sampled by both observing systems, and surface-drifting and moored buoys have increased the overall global coverage by up to 15% (see supplemental material for details). These changes have resulted in a time-dependent bias in the global SST record, and various corrections have been developed to account for the bias (18). Recently, a new correction (13) was developed and applied in the Extended Reconstructed Sea Surface Temperature dataset version 4, which we use in our analysis. In essence, the bias correction involved calculating the average difference between collocated buoy and ship SSTs. The average difference globally was −0.12°C, a correction which is applied to the buoy SSTs at every grid cell in ERSST version 4.

  2. Jim Hunt says:

    At the risk of repeating myself repeating myself repeating myself, Arctic sea ice is NOT closely tracking 2006:

    • Good point. It has been averaging well above 2006 for most of the year.

      • Jim Hunt says:

        Thanks Tony!

        That does rather depend on which metric you pick though, doesn’t it? By way of example here’s NSIDC extent

        You’d be hard pressed to find one where 2015 isn’t noticeably below 2006 currently?

        • Hugh says:

          Point taken, but you are still fighting over a few days of melt schedule. What will be the minimum, will it be ice free as predicted by Science, new record – I don’t think so – or what?

        • Sometimes it is a little above. Sometimes a little below. That is called “tracking.”

          Have you ever taken an IQ test?

    • Jim Hunt says:

      Tony – Have you looked at my DMI graph above?

      Should you have done so you will no doubt have noticed that 2015 is in fact “tracking” 2011 much more closely than 2006. 2011 is of course NOT the summer with the highest minimum of the past decade.

      Hugh – Personally I rather doubt the Arctic will be “ice free” by September! However for early indications see above. A “few days of melt” now can have an apparently disproportionate effect come September all other things being equal, which of course they never are.

    • chick20112011 says:

      without clicking YOUR blog, WHO are you Mr. Hunt?

  3. No better than POPULAR SCIENCE which decided to no longer allow public commentary on its website (that is, only allow commentary from “vetted experts”). THAT tells you plenty that they are not really about “science”, but more about politics! REAL Science never fears a healthy debate, even when debate may call into question the veracity of an already-established theory.

    Nothing new here.

  4. BareGills says:

    Is the thickness of the ice in any way tied to the IQ of POTUS?

  5. Caleb says:

    What is pretty pathetic is that the SA article uses an ice-extent graph ending with 2012. They don’t dare update it, for the graph would show an uptick. Is it any wonder they don’t allow comments?

    A fairly big storm is brewing up over the Pole this weekend. It will be interesting to watch and see what effects the winds have on the ice extent. Also to see how much precipitation falls as rain, and how much as snow. June rains up at the Pole make for splendid melt-water pools, but snows put the summer melt in reverse gear.

    • Jim Hunt says:

      Caleb – The SA article is dated “September 21, 2012”. They didn’t claim to be able to predict the future with any accuracy. See the bit above about “perhaps decades later”!

      • Hugh says:

        Indeed. When you scare people, always select your words so you can pooh-pooh your own prediction later when it failed.

        ‘A new ice age might be coming.’

      • Don says:

        Well, naturally! Decades later indeed. Heh.

      • Jason calley says:

        It is true that they said “perhaps decades later”, but I have a prediction of my own. I predict that if by some odd chance the Arctic does actually go “ice free” this summer, the folk at Scientific American will be shouting, “SEE!! IT”S JUST WHAT WE PREDICTED!!” Of course if they do not shout it immediately, then they will certainly shout it at some time, perhaps decades later.

      • Caleb says:

        I seldom have reason to thank Mr. Hunt for pointing out my errors, considering I am usually faster at spotting my own mistakes than he is, and he is not known for ever spotting his own mistakes, even when many, many voices try to point them out. However on this rare occasion I’m glad Mr. Hunt pointed out a mistake I made before finishing my first morning coffee.

        To return the favor I’d like to point out the pictures Mr. Hunt posted of melt-water pools by Mass Balance Buoy 2015A did not, as he suggested, show that melting was occurring. In truth they showed a refreeze was occurring. Compare:


        Don’t get me wrong. I do not expect the refreeze to continue. That ice should melt away, as I understand normal conditions to be, when the PDO is spiking “warm”. However, even though I expect the ice to melt, it is my duty to report what actually is happening, even if it isn’t what I expect.

        I sure do wish Mr. Hunt would learn to do the same. Why on earth he would want to tell us ice was melting when it seemed obvious it was refreezing is beyond me. Does he have some deep need to humiliate himself, like a medieval person undergoing self-flagellation? Or does he merely have a blind-spot, and need the help of an eye doctor?

  6. Elaine Supkis says:

    Don’t pat yourself on your back, Hunt.

    Your lies about how cold it is…el stupido.

    Look, on my NY mountain it is going to FREEZE tonight! In June! This is insanely colder than normal. We are fast having a ‘no summer’ summer. That is, it is like fall or spring all the time. Yes, things grow but crops are hit hard.

    A summer that is WINTER means we are in another Ice Age. Pray this doesn’t happen.

    • Jim Hunt says:

      Which “lies” might those be Elaine? Are you questioning the veracity of the thermistor string on buoy 2015A?

      We had a “no summer” summer in 2012 over on this side of the pond:

      Meanwhile I am given to understand that the Indian monsoon is arriving a bit later than anticipated this year:

      • darwin says:

        What is your point?

        When you nuts predict drought it rains. When you predict rain it’s dry. Polar ice was supposed to have disappeared by now … Texas was supposed to be in eternal drought. Hurricanes were supposed to have crushed the coasts. Kids were never to see snow again, then it snows not in inches but feet.

        Again, what the hell is your point? Is everything supposed to remain static? Never changing? Constant sea levels? Constant ice volumes? Constant temperatures?

      • Elaine Supkis says:

        Dummy: all ice ages begin in the same spots. In the case of Europe, the first place to glaciate is SCOTLAND. Yes, Scotland! Not even Norway, it is Scotland right where the cold spot is on your lovely map. The warm parts then get very cold very fast once Scotland doesn’t have a summer or spring.

  7. Jim Hunt says:

    My point is that it’s helpful to look at the data first, rather than the headlines

    • gator69 says:

      When are you going to confront Gore over his ridiculous hyperbole? I am still waiting.

      And why do you worry so about ice when humans are starving? If you had an ethical bone in your body you would confront the alarmists, and advocate for attention to human suffering, instead of hyperventilating over a little gain or loss of ice.

    • rah says:

      “Data”? Who’s “data”? The numbers are only as good as the credibility and capability of those that calculate them. The problem is that they keep producing numbers and say it means that this or that “may”, ‘might”, “could possibly” or any number of other qualifiers, happen and it doesn’t! And when some these number crunchers have said that something will happen without qualifying it, it doesn’t happen.

      In fact, more often than not the exact opposite has happened. Hurricanes, Tornadoes, droughts, and wild fires all down below normal for the last three years when they were predicted to increase in frequency and/or intensity.

      The NW passage is open when the Arctic was supposed to be “virtually ice free” by now. And Greenlands ice pack isn’t shrinking but in fact is doing the opposite.

      Not only do the children of GB know what snow is, so do the children of Jerusalem and Cairo.

      Antarctica set a new sea ice extent record in May which is just another of a growing line of such records and thus the global ice extent remain very high.

      Miami, NYC, San Francisco, LA, and New Orleans have not succumbed to the supposedly disastrous rising seas and the majority of Pacific Atolls are doing just fine.

      The Great Barrier reef is still there with no increase in bleaching evident.

      In my own little neck of the great Global woods in central Indiana we did not have a single day last year where the temp reached 100 deg F. And this spring is the coolest I can remember with the possible exception of the summer that never was when Pinatubo blew her top.

      I just want someone to point to any prediction of significant change or disaster that is OBSERVABLE in nature in this world that was predicted by the “scientists”. Screw the “data”. I want the results! Where are they?

  8. Elaine Supkis says:

    All those hurricanes and no blizzards…yes, Jim, your roasting earth…NOT.

  9. rah says:

    I’m just waiting for the President to say that American Pharoah won because of climate change.

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 )

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