“Arctic Sea Ice Gone in Summer Within Five Years?
Seth Borenstein in Washington
Associated Press
December 12, 2007An already relentless melting of the Arctic greatly accelerated this summer – a sign that some scientists worry could mean global warming has passed an ominous tipping point.
One scientist even speculated that summer sea ice could be gone in five years.
“The Arctic is screaming,” said Mark Serreze, senior scientist at the government’s snow and ice data center in Boulder, Colorado.
Just last year two top scientists surprised their colleagues by projecting that the Arctic sea ice was melting so rapidly that it could disappear entirely by the summer of 2040.
This week, after reviewing his own new data, NASA climate scientist Jay Zwally said: “At this rate, the Arctic Ocean could be nearly ice-free at the end of summer by 2012, much faster than previous predictions.”
Arctic Sea Ice Gone in Summer Within Five Years?
Since then there has been no trend in the Arctic sea ice minimum, maximum or mean extent..
ftp://osisaf.met.no/prod_test/ice/index/v2p2/nh/osisaf_nh_sie_daily.txt
“The Arctic is screaming…” Yep, I’m in Florida and I can hear it from here.
Oh wait, those are just seagulls.
But seriously, haven’t we passed every ‘tipping point’ already?
They have at least a sense of humor and comedy at Nat Geo
“Just last year two top scientists SURPRISED their colleagues
by projecting that arctic sea ice may entirely disappear by 2040 ”
I can not even imagine how much of a surprise it can be for a group of experts who have been crying wolf for years when 2 of them start crying wolf.
Yet noone of them is ever surprised when they see that the sea ice is still there – en contraire they instantly come up with a bunch of excuses and surprises.
And here some funny stuff from the good old ice age scare from 52 years ago that deserves more attention.
“We are on a definite downhill course for the next 200 years.
The last 20 years of this century will be progressivly colder.
After that the climate may warm up again but only for a short period of decades ”
Hubert Lamb, Director of Climate Research – University of South Anglia, 1972
So it seems that experts from half a century ago knew about the possibility of a cyclical warming trend, within a longer lasting cooling trend.
Yet none of these experts these days gives a crap about this knowledge or does even consider the possibility of a cyclical warming unrelated to humanity and co2.
Are Mark and Seth still employed?
They must have egg on their faces, but I suppose no one cares.
They should be on the carpet.
Maybe Trump will do something?? [if elected]
Why do they think sea ice is important? It is very likely that for most of the time that life has been on Earth, there has been NO sea ice. We’re living in a cool anomaly. The fact that it has lasted close to a million years makes it seem like the norm, and maybe it is the new norm, but the temperature pattern over the last 500,000,000 years makes one think that it will eventually shift back to higher temperatures, regardless of man and regardless of CO2.
And when you speak on those terms, the real danger is low CO2. It would be a shame if we allow CO2 to drop to a critical low when we could have boosted it.
Sea ice is so extremely important that on dec.3rd 1972 four dozen of experts met at Brown University with the plan to melt all of arctic sea ice by covering it with (environmental friendly) soot.
Sea ice is also important to stop the gulf stream flow.
While arctic sea ice has been melting so fast that it should no longer exist,
the tiny little bit that officially exists after all that melting will somehow be enough to put an end to the stream.
(the no more arctic ice zealots and the no more gulf stream fanatics really need to synchronize their BS)
Yes, they do need to synchronize their BS. Their illogical fearmongering is dripping with contradictions.
Why, oh why don’t the [C]AGW apologists (“zealots”) ever ask the logical question, which is, ‘Why, during the Holocene Optimum when there was little-to-no sea ice in the Arctic, did that situation not cause the Gulf Stream circulation to shut down and turn this planet into an ice ball?’ (Yet, they are afraid that that is what will happen now should the Arctic [again] lose its floating ice pack?!?) If that type of scenario didn’t take place during the Holocene Optimum, why in the world would/could it happen today under almost identical circumstances? It makes no sense, whatsoever.
I am no math whiz. But I believe I do understand logic and critical thinking. AGW is full of holes.
How often do we have to repeat Archimedes principle. Ice floats on water because it has lower density, i,e, higher specific volume. If it melts, its volume reduces. Also, the ice displaces its own weight of water, so the net effect of melting sea ice is a lowering of sea level. It is ice covering of land masses that can potentially cause sea level rise.
The DMI has their algorythm perfected where anytime the Actic ice area gets close to their 1981-2010 average area, the area drops suddenly as can be seen in Janaury, February and March when in a day or two the ice area drops thousands of square kilometers despite the temperature dropping from -10 degC to -25 deg C. https://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/index.uk.php
Yeah, it is a bit odd.
Climate science has reached a new level of sophistication and accuracy with the recent discovery of screaming. The quantification of arctic screaming is still in its infancy, but we can say with certainty that it is on the rise. What began as moaning, of low enough intensity that some scientists mistook it for polar wind or injured harp seals, or even overlooked it altogether, is now given its due as a socioclimatological construct. In as few as 4 to 6 years, according to some models, the screaming will have irreversibly transitioned into a deafening roar comparable only to that which accompanies Trump rallies.
Climate scientists produced a cusp catastrophe model to explain the onset of ice ages, and produced results which were credible, at least qualitatively. Essentially it is a matter of finding the conditions for positive feedback to occur. In the glaciation case it is the increasing albedo due to the extended ice cap. Note that this does not predict any tipping point due to melting of ice, reducing the extent of the ice cap
The same trick forms the basis of the ‘runaway greenhouse effect’; increased temperature causes outgassing of more greenhouse gases and so a point is reached when this positive feedback dominates, and the temperature rises out of control. This has two major problems, firstly the water vapour feedback is very strongly negative (high water vapour concentration leads to cooling, not heating), but more fundamentally, the greenhouse effect under equilibrium conditions is vanishingly small, if not altogether non-existent. By the way, catastrophe theory only deals with equilibrium conditions, and studies the stability as the system parameters vary, it says nothing about dynamics.
It strikes me that those who understand the maths know little of the physics, and those that understand the physics don’t understand the maths. The modern over-specialized approach, where nobody really understands the bigger picture, will inevitably produce arcane, erudite garbage.
The blinkered view of each individual leads to a sincerely held belief in a non-existent catastrophe. The fault lie in the upper echelons of the organization, where exemplary specialists are promoted, when what is required is for the specialists to acquire understanding of the work of other sections. In organisations where this danger is recognized, a manager is appointed who understands neither aspect of the problem.
Large systems operate in failure mode. The behemoth is not malignant, merely unbelievably stupid, even though it is made up of bright, intelligent people.
They were just talking about positive feedback loops on the Bret Weinstein Dark Horse Podcast last weekend. I forget the context of the discussion, but they were arguing against it and policy based on it.
You get unbounded positive feedbacks in natural systems by not fully accounting all relevant phenomena. The common climate science error is the belief that water vapour enhances the greenhouse effect, which might be true, but the effect on temperature lapse rate is much more drastic, by several orders of magnitude. The best the current wisdom can suggest is the increase in albedo due to increased cloud cover, again a localized effect with negligible global consequences. I get the impression of a discipline that understands nothing about convection and tries to explain everything in terms of (second order) radiative effects.
It would be lol if this kind of BS wasn’t so dangerous and pathetic.