“you can argue that may be our projection of 2013 is already too conservative.”
Disrupting the Borg is expensive and time consuming!
Google Search
-
Recent Posts
- “CALIFORNIA FIRES BEYOND CONTROL”
- “EIGHT SOUTHLAND AREAS SWEPT BY FLAMES”
- The Bel Air Fire Of 1961
- The Thing Of The Past
- “‘extremely unlikely’ without climate change, says scientists”
- Holocene Optimum In Alaska
- ‘Two incredible extreme events’
- The End Of Snow
- Google Maps Adds Context
- Thing Of The Past Update
- Expert Government Forecasting
- Thing Of The Past Comes To England
- “far outside the range of observed variability”
- African Desertification
- Grok Explains Polar Bears
- The Climate Denial Money Machine
- President Trump : “decisively defeat the climate hysteria hoax.”
- New Plan To Rob The Citizenry
- “Fifteen days to flatten the curve”
- Warm December 1923
- “Ensure No One Is Above the Law”
- The Best Electric Cars
- Honeybee Collapse Update
- “a live-animal market in Wuhan, China.”
- Fifteen Year Old Children In Australia Control The Weather
Recent Comments
- Jack the Insider on The Bel Air Fire Of 1961
- dm on The Bel Air Fire Of 1961
- conrad ziefle on The Bel Air Fire Of 1961
- conrad ziefle on The Thing Of The Past
- Timo, not that one! on The Bel Air Fire Of 1961
- Timo, not that one! on The Bel Air Fire Of 1961
- Francis Barnett on The Thing Of The Past
- arn on The Bel Air Fire Of 1961
- William on The Bel Air Fire Of 1961
- dm on The Bel Air Fire Of 1961
So accounting for 2005 and 2007, it probably should have been gone by now, since 2013 was being conservative, eh?
So I know that some people are arguing that the ones claiming the sea ice will be gone so soon are on the extreme and don’t represent the mainstream thought. However, if that’s true, where are all the more reasonable scientists opposing these sorts of statements? Why do the most extreme viewpoints get the coverage?
One point though…Dr. Wadhams could end up being right. By his sudden melt statement, things could look really normal until Sept 11, 2013, and then 4 million km^2 of ice just suddenly melts. Best to wait to call him out until Oct 1, 2013. 😉
-Scott
Scott:
Simple answer is $!
“However, if that’s true, where are all the more reasonable scientists opposing these sorts of statements?”
http://hw.libsyn.com/p/b/f/6/bf663fd2376ffeca/2010_Senate_Minority_Report.pdf?sid=960037451704d683012148f664613196&l_sid=27695&l_eid=&l_mid=2336201
Comments start on page 3.
It’s surprising to see a “science reporter” from “BBC News” reporting from “San Francisco” making somewhat, um, “alarmist” statements
He was right.
Prove me wrong.
Andy
Give that the summer minimum has been on an upwards trend since 2007, there might be good reason not to take that forecast seriously.
What’s the error bar on that “trend”? Do you even know how to calculate it? You might just as well say that since it’s been on a downwards trend since 2009, we should take it seriously again. The reality is that any trend based on less than a decade’s data is extremely unlikely to be significant – while the long-term trend is highly significant, and downwards.
An upwards trend is not a downwards trend. Ice free in two years would require an asteroid.