Professor Wieslaw Maslowski told an American Geophysical Union meeting that previous projections had underestimated the processes now driving ice loss.
“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.”
BBC NEWS | Science/Nature | Arctic summers ice-free ‘by 2013’
Yes, 2013 was a very conservative projection. More likely the Arctic will be ice free by 2011 or 2012.
Professor Peter Wadhams from Cambridge University, UK, is an expert on Arctic ice. He has used sonar data collected by Royal Navy submarines to show that the volume loss is outstripping even area withdrawal, which is in agreement with the model result of Professor Maslowski.
“Some models have not been taking proper account of the physical processes that go on,” he commented
“In the end, it will just melt away quite suddenly
Hansen past the tipping point
James Hansen of NASA is another brave exception, defying government gag orders. Hansen told Reuters, quote, “”The reason so much (of the Arctic ice) went suddenly is that it is hitting a tipping point that we have been warning about for the past few years.”
If they keep changing the Algorithm, I’m sure they can land on a formula for Ice Free in 2011 or even 2010.
When the Arctic is ice-free–say, within the next five years–will you guys claim that because it didn’t melt out by 2013 that it didn’t melt out at all? Because it’s going, and going fast. Minimum ice during the second week of this coming September will be less than 25% of what it was just three decades ago. What does that 75% loss in 33 years mean to you? And how would you explain it?
I take it you are willing to bet on a record low this summer?
I already have!
But winning a bet is not nearly as good as getting the basic understanding of the processes right, and there are multiple processes involved!
Whats left of the vaunted “multi-year” ice is now bunched up against the Canadian islands. The thinner, more frangible ice covers the rest of the Arctic, but its lack of depth makes it vulnerable to an ocean current fueled “surprise” (watch the AGW crowd go apoplectic!) disappearance (& subsequent winter reappearance).
The result? Continuity of the past 15 year NH temperature flatline, as available summer Arctic moisture “albedos” the surrounding land.
If an “El Niño” forms at the same time (good chance it is already possible), the heightened temperature contrast between the equatorial Pacific and polar regions should make for some “interesting” Jet Stream activity and further excite the AGW crowd.
Think they can handle it???
Yesterday, I obtained a value of 4 on my black box.
Today I obtained a value of 1.
Tomorrow that value will be . . . ?
If you can’t explain why there has been a 75% reduction in the values being output by my black box, you should shut up.
These fools are doing the scare the bejesus out of everyone thing wrong.. Next year?? Come on boneheads. Next year is like just a step and a half away. Get a friggin grip! How bout 3013? Now that gives you time to pontificate smugly about your death threat to humanity for a loooong time. Even after your demise. If you want more ‘immediacy’, then make it 1/2 that. 2063 is within the lifetimes of some of your addle brained libtard it hurts to think greenie wienie Obamabots. Think aboutit. Revise your prognostication. The whole world is waiting. Thank you, and may an ice free Polar Bear give you a warm hug.
I enjoyed scizzorbill’s comment. Halfway from 2012 to 3013 is 2063. I’m sure it’s “just a typo” and he (assuming scizzorbill is a he) meant 3013 but it gave me a chuckle nonetheless.
This shows how much hysteria is created by reporters. The title of the BBC article is very misleading. Maslowski is quoted saying:
“It might not be as early as 2013 but it will be soon, much earlier than 2040.”
“My thinking on this is that 2030 is not an unreasonable date to be thinking of.”
That leaves some time for more lively discussions 🙂
That was Serreze not Maslowski. But thanks for the pointless comment.
Sorry it seems I didn’t read carefully. You were right. I retract my comment.