One of our former readers has predicted we are going to see a big Arctic meltdown by September.
This could be difficult with temperatures below freezing, ice extent in the the Beaufort sea beyond the 1981-2010 median, and sea ice volume close to the highest for the date in the last 15 years.
Greenland ice sheet near all-time greatest snow/ice volume, and surrounded by water w SST well < normal.
I love that figure I want to turn it into a bumper sticker and put it on my greenhouse special gas guzzling low-mileage climate destroying vehicle (or better yet slap several of them on algore's private jet and low-mileage vehicle fleet).
DMI Greenland SMB is now trending a little above last year. Wow.
It’s growing and we were told it was going to disappear. Wow.
No argument from me. I was not being sarcastic or argumentative, but expressing amazement. Here is the SMB chart from the 29th, with guidelines to emphasize the comparison with last year.
Last year’s decline rate for SMB was higher than it is now, so 2018 is getting higher above the same date last year.
Wow.
It’s worse than we thought! Our high temperature here today will be 30 degrees cooler than the record in 2012. This trend dictates that by 2033, just 15 years from now, our high will be -1F.
We are doomed!
That is what I remember from 2 months ago. I hope Griff makes the appropriate admission in September. Otherwise, he is part of the ETHICAL PROBLEM of CAGW theory. There needs to be consequences for these kinds of wild predictions and minimally Griff needs to admit his error. Otherwise, at best, I can’t take him seriously or the science he espouses and at worst he is unethical. There really needs to be accountability for one’s words, and as I have realized the mistakes I have made in the past (teaching CAGW as a fact, without spending the time to verify what I was teaching) I have endeavored to correct them: by stopping my participation in courses where CAGW is presented as fact and apologizing to former students when I encounter them. I would expect as much from Griff, to stand by what he posted or correct himself and rejoin the discussion as a rational actor.
Griff,
If you are really worried about combating enemies of Democracy, take a look at this film:
https://www.real.video/5811804296001
Here is the back story:
https://consortiumnews.com/2017/08/02/a-blacklisted-film-and-the-new-cold-war/
You might be thinking that you are supporting Democracy but just ingesting whatever the MSM feeds you without thinking, but my guess is you are really and unknowingly supporting the reverse. IMHO
It is an interesting video. Long, but well worth watching.
Nothing that surprising. As in all matters there are often two sides to a story, and often it is difficult to get to the key facts so as to know what is right, and what is wrong.
It has real and significant implications for today, as governments, and lefty institutions, are trying to control the “facts” that the public are allowed to know, so as to frame the narrative and tilt debates in their favour.
Democracy and free speech are under attack. We need to stand firm and not allow 1984 to become reality.
Anon, that was excellent.
As another former believer, I think Griff was getting hit with way too much disillusioning data, and in order to maintain belief, he had to back off. Griff got too close for too long, exposed himself to the light way too many times. Cracks have formed and he can no longer argue for his AGW leaders without getting mired in extreme dissonance. If he were to come back, it would likely be under another pseudonym.
Good point Dis… For me it was never that I thought I was on one side or the other. If the data indicated that CAGW was true, I would teach that, if the data indicates the reverse, then I stop. For me it is a constant sifting for the truth, if the truth does not support the way I view the world, then I need to change my view.
I think being a “basic” scientist is really a big help in that. In fundamental chemistry, math and physics, you follow the data, without emotional investment. And you also are very aware of how little we know. For example, Newton’s Laws work for most of the Solar System, until you get the the orbit of Mercury, then you need Relativity. Relativity explains the motion of the Solar System, but if you try to move beyond the Solar System, to the motion of the Galaxy, Relativity fails and you need to add “Dark Matter”. And beyond that, the Universe requires the addition of Dark Energy. Both Dark Matter and Dark Energy are currently mysteries, if they even exist at all, however, when we posit them they allow us to continue to use Relativity, but it just may be in the future that we will have to rework the whole theory.
Believing in science (or scientific fact) is really ignorant in my opinion, it is believing in the “method” of science that is of most value. A constant sifting for the truth… where the outcomes are rarely settled and where the current consensus is often meaningless. IMHO
Good commentary. I leaned libtard at one time, but when W began promoting CAGW I looked into it further, as I had found W’s administration to be repugnant in so many areas.
As a scientist, what I found with regard to “climate science” was appalling. It’s not about science, good science anyway. It’s sloppy and based on dishonesty.
In my enlightenment, I became a CAGW skeptic and concurrently became politically conservative.
“In fundamental chemistry, math and physics, you follow the data, without emotional investment.”
And you follow the data without the financial, political, and peer pressure, which add into that “emotional investment.”
“… it is believing in the “method” of science that is of most value.”
Well said. Since WWII, the scientific method has been all-but put up on a shelf and forgotten.
“I think Griff was getting hit with way too much disillusioning data, and in order to maintain belief, he had to back off.”
Ms Griff used the standard “progressive” method of backing off. She claimed moral high ground by accusing her adversaries to be enemies of “the good”. Who was the minor TV light who used the same excuse not long ago so he didn’t have to face Tony?
Oh, that never-heard-of-before-meteorologist/can’t-be-bothered-looking-up-his-name-now twit on tweeter. Almost forgot about the troll. Yeah, he backed out similarly.
Easy to lower your extent when you remove all of the ice in Hudson Strait and most of the ice in Hudson Bay as NSIDC has done when Canadian Ice Services and DMI both show a lot of ice in both of them.
MASIE has Hudson Bay Extent above every year except 2015,
and at 2.5 time the average extent since 2006.
Baffin Bay is above EVERY other year back to 2006
And the Canadian Archipelago is all above every other years, except 2008, which it is just a tiny bit below.
With Beaufort Sea also high, I wonder if anyone will attempt the NWP this year.
Here’s 2 cruises, starting Aug 18 and 26, Montreal, CA to Nome, AK. Stage in Montreal, then fly to Greenland and set sail.
https://www.adventure-life.com/arctic/cruises/12168/the-northwest-passage-from-greenland-to-the-bering-sea
Starting at ‘only’ $30-32K a person.
Enjoy!
Good grief!! What took so blasted long?!! You would think he/she is some kind of attention-whore masochist/martyr for bloviating here for this length of time….If they really think that man-produced co2 is a permanent and ongoing problem, they are going to let one “outlier” season send them into a spiraling depression? …..not much of a true believer…(though definitely a sycophant).
An honest assessment by Griff would acknowledge that global sea ice is higher now than it has been for most of the present interglacial and the attempt to use global sea ice as some kind of proof of AGW is ridiculous.
Never underestimate the human capacity for rationalization and self-delusion.
I hope Griff does not slink off with her tail between her legs like Reggie did if the Arctic doesn’t cooperate with her message of imminent ice doom. A bit of humility in the face of nature’s mysteries would humanize her. But the “enemies of democracy” allegation is truly delusional and if it refers to Tony and his readership. Textbook cognitive dissonance.
Democracy requires a well informed media not sheeps to work.
Interesting that the real denier the is Griff who believes Arctic is too warm and trying to find rainfall is increasing in the UK when both are false.
Off topic but wanted to share this outrage :
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/jul/29/polar-bear-shot-dead-after-attacking-cruise-ship-guard-in-norway
I am outraged that a polar bear has been killed to satisfy idiotic eco-tourism
Alarmist, ” Global warming caused the polar bear to be hungry enough to attack the cruise ship guard.” It does not matter that it is easy to prove otherwise but as long as it is sensationalist and man hating, the leftists will read the article.
If the pictured bear was involved, looks awful skinny.
It does not look like there is much cover around, I wonder how the guide did not notice it.
Noooooooooo-oooo, Griff, say it ain’t so. Whatever shall we do without zir. Doncha HATE it when the stalker says they are definitely, absolutely going off this time and never coming back, “Don’t even have to change the locks, honey, ’cause if I’m not wanted, then… then… (sob).”
“Unless I HAVE to come back. If only for your own good. Because I love you soooo much. Too much, in fact. It’s just I baked this special batch of muffins and thought you’d really like them! It wasn’t like stalking, driving past your house at 4:00 AM with hot muffins, I just thought… IT’S FOR YOUR OWN GOOD YOU BASTARD.”
Sumpin like thet. But don’t mourn the passing of “Griff” now consigned to the outer darkness of Denier-denialism. Remember instead the rule of 100,000, um, knuckleheads. Even if you could take che aside (I say all nonbinary pronouns should be based on the name of St. Che) and convince che of the error of cher’s ways… there’s another 99,999, er, knuckleheads right behind cher so why bother. Buh-bye St. Griff.
I think anyone who has been a regular reader of this blog understands that this Griff guy is an unhinged neurotic, like the rest of the obsessive-compulsive doomsday warmists. These people are mentally ill, and cannot enjoy life. Something is always wrong, it’s always mankind’s fault, and if we don’t fix it right away we’re all dead. This is witchcraft nonsense, and it’s been plaguing the human race since time began. Mankind is evil, and now the gods of nature will punish us all. Silly, infantile, and tiresome, and especially interesting considering how these people usually do not consider themselves to be religious.
However, I do like the grandiosity and narcissism of the guy with the self-indulgent “my work here is done” stuff, as if he’s Sheriff Bart from “Blazing Saddles”. Very entertaining. And, I’m honored that Griff thinks I’m one of those who are an “enemy of democracy”. His Obama-esque version of “democracy” I do not want.
Stats for July 28 DMI Sea Ice Volume:
2018 is still #4 for volume, now at 115.08% of the 16-year average, and 116.86% of the DMI-graphed 10-year 2004-2013 years. Since the decline amount was a little above average, compared with both averages, the values declined with respect to the 1-sigma line, but are still in the 2nd standard deviation group.
Decline since the day before was up a bit to -144 cu km, 10th lowest for the day, and a lesser decline than #1 2004 (-150), and #3 (-146), but higher than #2 2014 (-128) . As a result, the gap between this year and those changed.
Compared with the sliding 7-day decline rate, 2018 was 4th lowest.
+20
<"…my work here is done."
No it’s not. You still owe me your prediction for the year the Arctic will be ice-free. It won’t be this year. When Griff, when?
I’ll wait until your return in September for your answer.
Not going to be a massively low ice extent this year I feel, my 4.1million guess maybe too low, we will see. He is right in that we should wait until September though, a lot of melt still occurs in August (see 2012 for that when there is the perfect storm!)
Andy
It didn’t “melt” the ice. It moved it, concentrating it along northern Canada’s Arctic shores.
It is too early in the melt season to predict the end point.
So we should wait until the melt season is over, and ice once more begins to grow, before crowing too loudly.
But the basic geometry of the planet with its axial tilt makes it very difficult to achieve a summer ice free Arctic. The problem with most predictions is that it appears that the so called “scientists” do not understand basic geometry, and how that impacts and why in the light of basic geometry, it is so silly to make predictions which are essentially a straight linear extrapolation upon a short term trend. The basic geometry acts akin to a self regulatory negative feedback attenuating ice melt.
True, but this doesn’t strike me as “crowing too loudly”:
”One of our former readers has predicted we are going to see a big Arctic meltdown by September.”
“This could be difficult with temperatures below freezing, ice extent in the the Beaufort sea beyond the 1981-2010 median, and sea ice volume close to the highest for the date in the last 15 years.”
[Emphasis in bold is mine]
High pressure is forecast to dominate the arctic basin for the first half of August with the western areas staying on the cool side. This map represents the temps that will be seen during the that time.
I’ll probably get flack for this, but I think we should go easy on Griff. Sarc can be fun, but it might be better to give Griff space to accept a different viewpoint without getting an avalanche of crap on his head.
Now that I got that out of my system: democracy? What about freedom? Doesn’t he want to be free? Maybe he’s trolling us and we missed it.
Stats for July 29 DMI Sea Ice Volume:
2018 is still #4 for volume, now a little higher at 115.12% of the 16-year average, and also higher at 117.00% of the DMI-graphed 10-year 2004-2013 years. Since the decline amount was a little above average, compared with both averages, the values declined with respect to the 1-sigma line, but are still in the 2nd standard deviation group.
Decline since the day before was above average at -130, 11th lowest for the day, and a greater decline than #1 2004 (-123), #2 2014 (-119) and #3 (-109), As a result, the gap between this year and those changed got a bit greater. #5 2005 had below average decline of -107, and is now 54 lower than 2018. 2005 is about to enter a week of small declines (each less than 100 per day) which may cause it and 2018 to switch places, depending on what 2018 does.
Upcoming low points for comparative years:
2003 low point is on Sep 1
2004 low point is on Aug 16
2005 low point is on Aug 18
2014 low point is on Sep 10
Compared with the sliding 7-day decline rate, 2018 was 6th lowest.
On a statistical note: The 1-sigma values for both the 16-year and 10-year series have been declining over the last 2 weeks. This indicates that the volumes for the included years have been getting more closely grouped around the mean for the sets. Today (July 30) the 1-sigma for the 10-year group increases, meaning that the values are spaced a bit more. Once the values are available tomorrow, I will be also able to say whether the 16-year 1-sigma is behaving similarly. This amount of this change is subtle day-to-day, but you can see the effect of it continuing as we go through August as years begin to recover.
The August low points for lower-ranked (not already mentioned) years are:
2006 – August 13
2007 – August 23
2008 – August 29
2009 – August 18
2010 – Sept 6
2011 – August 24
2012 – August 21
2013 – August 23
2015 – August 17
2016 – Sept 9
2017 – Sept 1
Enjoy.
Forgot to say: Some of the years had a renewed surge of melting late in the schedule. 2003 and 2014 were good examples of that.
It’s highly unlikely that we will see a big meltdown or blowout of the arctic sea ice this year, (short of unexpected events like a nearby super-nova, massive undersea volcanism, etc.). But supposing we do. So what?? Paleo-climate studies suggest that, deep in the last glaciation, there were periods when the arctic was ice free; and both CO2 and global temperatures were much lower. The arctic sea ice may be an indicator of where world temperature is headed, but is not a highly reliable one.
More likely it is an indicator of where the temperature was.