In 2008, Maslowski predicted an ice free Arctic prior to 2013. That proved to be one of the dumbest predictions of the year, so he just predicted it again.
the summer melt could lead to ice-free Arctic seas by 2016 – “plus or minus three years”.
h/t to Maurizio Morabito
This new new model used in this new new prediction was very hush hush but I was able to get a peek at it and am happy to share it here.
http://www.popsci.com/files/imagecache/article_image_large/files/articles/prinn-roulette-4.jpg
Okay, that was good… 🙂
Has anyone noticed how they keep pushing the date back?
The problem with making a climate prediction is that when it fails to materialize you lose credibility. Snowfall are now just a thing of the past – proceeded by 9 out of 10 years of snow in the UK.
http://nofrakkingconsensus.wordpress.com/2010/01/07/climate-psychics-10-year-old-snow-prediction-fails-miserably/
He’s not pushing the date back, the forecast is unchanged and remains at 2016 +/- 3 years. Go and read the original predictions, not the inaccurate reportage.
And no, it is not the same forecast –
“Now they are working with a new computer model – compiled partly in response to those criticisms – that produces a “best guess” date of 2016.”
Hum, that’s purely a semantic debate. The model used to generate the forecast has been updated, but gives the same results as last time, i.e. 2016 +/- 3 years. Do you call that the “same forecast”, because it’s numerically the same answer, or a “different forecast” because it was made uging a different model?
Frankly, you can call it an ice cream sundae if you like, it doesn’t change the numbers 🙂
He is way off the mark. Even Serreze understands that.
Let’s wait till 2019 to call his forecast wrong, eh? Otherwise you’ll look a monumental idiot if he turns out to be right.
Hopefully you are making a joke.
If by wait you mean we can all forget about this global warming nonsense and everything that comes with it, I think we would all agree.
Yes, lets wait to see if he was correct. And lets not make any policies until there is proof that he is correct, as well as all the others….Hansen et. al.
blocked from linking to Facebook again…”abusive site”…the poor bunnies are p…ed
In 2008, Maslowski predicted an ice free Arctic prior to 2013.
Cite, please. And make that a cite for the original prediction, not the inaccurate reporting that followed. The prediction from 2008 was for 2016 +/- 3 years, exactly the same as today.
Here’s the link: see page 12: http://soa.arcus.org/sites/soa.arcus.org/files/sessions/1-1-advances-understanding-arctic-system-components/pdf/1-1-7-maslowski-wieslaw.pdf
It very clearly says “Combined (95-07) model / data linear volume trend of -1075 km3 / yr projects ice-free fall by 2016M/b> (±3yrs uncertainty – 95-07)”
The media reporting at the time of course focused on the lower bound, which is why this time round he’s stressing the average and upper bound to make sure it doesn’t get misrepresented. The forecast itself remains unchanged despite the upgraded climate/ice model.
So Maslowski did not say this then?
“Our projection of 2013 for the removal of ice in summer is not accounting for the last two minima, in 2005 and 2007,” the researcher from the Naval Postgraduate School, Monterey, California, explained to the BBC.
“So given that fact, you can argue that may be our projection of 2013 is already too conservative.”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7139797.stm
“Peter Ellis says:”
“The prediction from 2008…[snip] Here’s the link: see page 12: http://soa.arcus.org/sites/soa.arcus.org/files/sessions/1-1-advances-understanding-arctic-system-components/pdf/1-1-7-maslowski-wieslaw.pdf”
Ooops. Page modified 31 March 2010.
Following on my previous comment:
That pdf wasn’t modified in 2010, it was _written_ in 2010,
and so is not evidence of what was said – or intended – in 2007.
Gah, HTML typo
******
It very clearly says “Combined (95-07) model / data linear volume trend of -1075 km3 / yr projects ice-free fall by 2016 (±3yrs uncertainty – 95-07)”
If I had realized how easy climate science was…
….I would have changed fields
All you have to do is make predictions 6 years out…………..
I’ll bet 20,000 dollars that the arctic is not ice free in the summer of 2019.
“Peter Ellis says:”
“It very clearly says “Combined (95-07) model…[snip]”
Wrt Maslowski’s prediction, made in 2008, yet in this BBC article
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7139797.stm
“Arctic summers ice-free ‘by 2013’ ” written in 2007 , Maslowski says
“Our projection of 2013 for the removal of ice in summer is not accounting for the last two minima, in 2005 and 2007.”
So it seems the 2013 prediction was made and reported in 2007, using data that
ended before 2005.
A document allegedly written in 2008, and apparently modified in 2010 does
not refute that.
In 2007 Professor Maslowski said, “Our projection of 2013 for the removal of ice in summer is not accounting for the last two minima, in 2005 and 200. So given that fact, you can argue that maybe our projection of 2013 is already too conservative.”
No matter how ‘conservative’ Maslowski’s prediction (based on computer models) was, he now feels compelled to extend that date to 2016 ( +/- 3 years, just in case he was right all along).
Is this rolling prediction to be updated by three years every three years on the off-chance that it happens one day? It was plainly an absurd prediction when he made it and it is even more absurd now. But Richard Black, who is called ‘Climate Correspondent for the BBC’ sees no need to question this sequence of failing predictions.
Even if the Arctic did eventually become ice free, this would only be the same as it was in the previous inter-glacial period, the Eemian, 120,000 years ago (according to the IPCC).
So this outcome would be natural, i.e. it has happened before as part of the naturally repeating ice-age cycle, without human assistance.
So what is the problem?