Expert Forecasts

Reader Andy says my “forecasts have been as bad as the scientists.

I’ve been saying for ten years that nothing is happening in the Arctic, and that the small year over year variations are just noise. Meanwhile, experts have been predicting the Arctic would be ice-free in 2008, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018 ….

Wayback Machine

There has been no change in Arctic ice over the last decade.

Spreadsheet    Data

Andy appears to be unable to distinguish between the quality of my analysis and the quality of the analysis done by the hacks known as “climate experts.” The dissonance among climate alarmists is quite astonishing.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

36 Responses to Expert Forecasts

  1. arn says:

    In general:
    When someone says your forecasts are as ‘bad’ as the scientists,
    it is a compliment as you operate on expert level.
    But when those scientists are climate scientists it is an insult
    claiming that you are less accurate than fortune tellers and voodoo priests.

    (on the other hand it makes me wonder why a guy like Andy is very well aware of the incompetence of those scientists(calling their predictions bad)
    but is still believing&defending them.
    The Allah of cognitive dissonance must be very strong with this one.

  2. R. Shearer says:

    One important consideration is that Mr. Heller shows all available data and the Arctic alarmists do not. For instance, low ice in the early 20th century from direct observations and low ice in the early 70’s via satellite measurements are not only ignored, but hidden by the alarmists.

    • Griff says:

      On the contrary – there is now a collection of all available data going back to the 1850s.

      and it shows that ice now is lower in extent and/or a worse condition than its (low) state in the mid 1940s and 1970s. I believe even Judith Curry has said the post 2007 state of the ice is lower than any point in the 40s.

      • AndyG55 says:

        Plenty of data going back WAY before the LIA griff.

        Shows that LIA was an EXTREME ANOMALY

        Shows that Arctic sea ice is STILL in the top 10% of Holocene extents.


        .. it make you look more and more like a MINDLESS PARROT !!

      • Caleb says:


        Please supply a link so I can ascertain which data you are referring to. If it is the set I am thinking of then you should know a lot of in-filling is involved.

        For example, suppose there is an old record of solid sea-ice on the shore at Barrow, Alaska, and out to sea as far as they could see, (which was only a few miles before buildings taller than two stories were built). Now we know (from satellite views) that the ice breaks up not many miles from shore, but when they are looking at the year 1898 they will map solid ice all the way to the North Pole, and therefore the extent totals will be absurdly higher.

        In some cases they in-filled sea-ice in places where we know sailing ships found enough open water to progress. It only took a few inches of sea-ice to stop a sailing craft, unless there was a strong following wind, so when they in-filled 100% sea-ice in a place where whalers hunted whales, or explorers traveled, we know the in-filling is incorrect.

        In a few cases they neglected to consult the first satellite pictures we have, which are the early Nimbus shots from the late 1960’s. There is one shot from September, 1969 which shows a huge area of open water completely surrounded by sea-ice, in the Central Arctic north of Alaska. Because this open water is unreachable by any boat except a modern ice-breaker, we would not even have a clue it was there, were it not for satellite pictures.

        Lastly, there are areas we have no data whatsoever that are automatically infilled with 100% sea-ice. This makes ice totals look higher in the past, but the fact of the matter is we have no idea whether there was ice there or not.

        To pretend such maps and graphs of past conditions are “authoritative” is really silly. They are a guess, and they are not even a good guess, due to obvious bias.

        Therefore do not wave a piece of paper vaguely about and suggest it holds proof sea-ice was thicker in the past. Slap it down on the table, and lets have a look at it. I think you will soon see what I’ve suggested.

  3. AndyG55 says:

    Better graph, TH,

    You tried to keep the little bits before the first peak and after the last peak about equal, this minimising any cyclic effect on the fitted trend line.

    My mathematical pickiness is satisfied. :-)

  4. Brad says:

    Thats because the brains are rotten away from all the nonsense.

  5. Autumn Greenleaf says:

    The climate is always going to change
    Only man would be so opnipotent to believe we can CONTROL the cycle of the Earth.

    Plants like CO2

    • terak says:

      Extra CO2 traps heat. This is NOT a very difficult concept after all.

      • AndyG55 says:

        “Extra CO2 traps heat. “

        ROFLMAO,, what a load of unsubstantiated BS.

        That is probably the most ANTI-PHYSICS, ANTI-SCOIENCE piece of NONSENSE to come out of the whole AGW scam.

        There is not one piece of empirical evidence that enhanced atmospheric CO2 does ANYTHING except enhance plant growth.

        You are so IGNORANT and GULLIBLE that you fall for the most basic of AGW FALLACIES.

        If you have some empirical evidence to CO2 warming anything, anywhere anytime..

        then PRODUCE IT.

        … and please don’t be so dumb as to thing that proof of CO2 being a radiative gas proves warming….. It DOESN’T.

        • terak says:

          I sometimes read the comments on Dr. Spencer’s blog for amusement…there appears to be a vocal subgroup of denialists who believe “backradiation” violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics. Funny stuff…

          ps. there is direct evidence that the extra CO2 has changed the emission-spectrum of the Earth, exactly as predicted by AGW. It’s difficult to imagine better evidence than this.

          • AndyG55 says:

            So you have ZERO EVIDENCE of warming.

            Why not just say so !!

            No, the emission absorption spectrum is NO EVIDENCE AT ALL.

            You obviously lack any understanding of science, AT ALL.

            Any idea of the difference between thermalisation time and re-emission time, little child?

            Or even what it means ???

            Or what happens once the CO2 absorbs in its tiny narrow low-energy slot, with a mean free path of less than 12m ??

            You do know that CO2 does not re-emit below about 11km, don’t you?

            Seems you are blessed with a very deep level of IGNORANCE.

            The CO2 laser guys who know this stuff… LAUGH AT YOU.

          • AndyG55 says:

            “I sometimes read the comments on Dr. Spencer’s blog for amusement”

            Yep there are couple of prize ignorant clowns there , for sure.

            Rotten Appell is the lead clown there, but griff has that honour here…. do keep trying though terak,., you are good for a laugh. :-)

          • AndyG55 says:

            DWLWR is DECREASING.

          • AndyG55 says:

            OLR is increasing

          • AndyG55 says:

            Big increase in OLR in 62 years.

            What is supposed increase in CO2 forcing (lol) in that time period?

          • Gerald Machnee says:

            Show me ONE MEASUREMENT.
            You cannot.

          • Squidly says:

            Hahahaha … hahahahaha!

            “back radiation” .. I love it. The idiocracy is overwhelming.

            Terak, what is the source of this “back radiation”? .. yes, the surface.

            So, explain to us how an object (the surface) can further heat itself through this magical “back radiation” … please explain …

            Terak, when you look in the mirror, can you feel the heat from your face upon your face? .. If you look long enough, you should be able to give yourself a sunburn.

      • richard says:


        There was a lovely experiment where they use two test tubes. They fill one with extra co2-

        Can you tell me how much Co2 is used in that experiment?

        If you don’t know , how can this be considered a scientific experiment where all volumes must be recorded.

      • Squidly says:

        “Extra CO2 traps heat.”

        Sorry, but there is no gas in the universe that can “trap heat”. It is a physical impossibility. Go back to school.

  6. Colorado Wellington says:

    I always wonder why people like Reader Andy stake out these indefensible positions. Some form of intellectual masochism, I guess.

  7. Griff says:

    Of course the ice is continuing to decline…

    Lower maximums, record low extents in winter, less old thick ice, ice extents and volume nowhere near 1980s values, not recovering to pre-2007 levels, extent and volume trends down year on year, etc, etc

    MAISIE is not a useful tool for year on year comparison, as this website has been repeatedly told.

  8. Mac says:

    I really cannot believe that these people actually think that 0.04% CO2 in the atmosphere is going to destroy a 5 billion year-old planet. 1 molecule of CO2 for every other 2499 molecules of other gases. That molecule supposedly causes hurricanes, tornadoes, earthquakes, volcanoes, zombies, STDs, bees, and anything else that’s bad.

    That’s some seriously sinister molecule. Someone should make a horror movie about it. Oh, wait… Al Gore already did.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.