Further to the cessation of the brief hiatus in my continuing discussions with “Steve Goddard” about “global warming”, the debate has turned to predictions concerning Arctic sea ice metrics during the 2014 melting season.
Firstly here’s a few charts of assorted Arctic sea ice metrics, hot off the virtual presses:
Chart from Cryosphere Today – http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/arctic.sea.ice.interactive.htmlChart from IJIS – http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/en/home/seaice_extent.htmChart from DMI – http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/icecover.uk.phpChart from DMI – http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/old_icecover.uk.php
Here’s a table of the minimum value of some of those metrics for a selection of years:
In brief “Al Gore never ‘predicted’ that the Arctic would be ice-free by now!”
Them:
Well, he didn’t say ’22 years from now’, did he? No, he emphasized the most alarmist position he could find.
You can weasel out of this by stating that Gore did not make the prediction ,but he sure as Hell quoted and emphasized it, over any and all other predictions. And in front of the Nobel committee and entire world at that!
So have you confronted Gore over the failed prediction he parroted in Oslo? When you do, you will have a modicum of credibility. Get busy.
Us:
At the risk of repeating myself, “for the benefit of those who seem unable to understand either English or Mathematics a ‘projection’ is not the same thing as a ‘prediction’”
Getting back to Tony’s predictions, and using the NSIDC daily extent numbers for the moment, would you say that 4.98339 is “exactly” 5.74877? How about “close”?
Them:
Actually, no, your chart is less clear. Steve’s has all the years and it is clear his prediction is correct. Yours does not. Nor does yours have a legible legend. Another snow white lie.
Us:
Have you by any chance tried clicking on my chart? Does that help at all?
At the risk of repeating myself, would you say that 4.98339 is “exactly” 5.74877? How about “close”?
Them:
What bearing does 2013’s minimum have on goddard’s prediction for 2014? Are you a half-wit in addition to being a mentally ill stalker & transvestite?
Us:
What bearing does 2014’s maximum have on 2014’s minimum?
Are you blind?
Them:
You seem to think that some random number you came up with has some bearing on the subject at hand. Hint: it’s why we think you’re mentally ill.
Us:
Of course they’re not random numbers. To save you the bother of doing your own research please feel free to take a look at:
Stark, it’s not about random numbers, it’s about random harassment. This clown takes no issue with ridiculous ‘projections’ delivered by alarmist zealots on a world stage, instead he haunts this site moaning about near misses.
But you are right about the mentally ill bit.
Us:
The conversation about the non-random Arctic numbers has at last taken a statistical turn over at:
According to David Rose’s latest article in the Mail on Sunday it has. This came as shock news to me, because only a couple of days ago I was discussing with “Steve Goddard” how Arctic sea ice extent (using “Steve’s” patent pending personal “DMI 30% clone” metric) had actually decreased since the same time last year!
Before we delve deep into the data, and before the Mail on Sunday makes any “corrections” to David’s misleadingly purple prose, here’s how things look over there at the moment:
Them:
As you can see, the Mail’s main claims are:
Seven years after former US Vice-President Al Gore’s warning, Arctic ice cap has expanded for second year in row
An area twice the size of Alaska – America’s biggest state – was open water two years ago and is now covered in ice
These satellite images taken from University of Illinois’s Cryosphere project show ice has become more concentrated
not to mention that:
The Mail on Sunday can reveal that, far from vanishing, the Arctic ice cap has expanded for the second year in succession – with a surge, depending on how you measure it, of between 43 and 63 per cent since 2012.
For some strange reason David neglects to include any numbers for 2013, so….
Us:
A quick telephone call revealed that John Wellington doesn’t work at the Mail on Sunday’s, so I sent him an email instead:
“The Mail on Sunday can reveal that, far from vanishing, the Arctic ice cap has expanded for the second year in succession”
I don’t suppose David and/or the Mail on Sunday can provide any data to back up that assertion can they?
Best wishes,
Jim Hunt
Them:
Hello Jim,
I did wonder if we would be corresponding, again.
I will be in touch after the weekend.
Best regards
John
Us:
Hi Tessa,
I’m working on the assumption that you are still responsible for this subject. If not perhaps you can pass this email on to the relevant person?
David Rose is talking about the Arctic on the Mail Online again, so I’m attempting to comment again. Yet again I can’t see my comments (under the nom de guerre “SoulSurfer”) anywhere underneath the article in question. Can you look into it please, and let me know what the problem is?
To make things easier for you I’ve just commented for the third time this morning, as per the enclosed attachment.
Thanks,
Jim Hunt
Them:
In an email dated September 6th 2014:
Dear Jim,
Sorry not to reply sooner. The article relied on data from the US National Snow and Ice Data Centre comparing ice cover on the same date, August 25. In 2012 the figure was 3.91m sq miles, in 2013 it was 5.59m and in 2014, 5.62m. You may wish to note that the article did point out that the long-term trend is still downward.
Best regards
John
Us:
In an email dated January 24th 2015:
Dear John,
Sorry not to reply sooner. The PCC decided to laboriously mutate into something called IPSO right around the time of the 2014 Arctic sea ice minimum extent. Hence the brief hiatus. However David Rose is at it again, and he’s now even discussing tricky things like “probabilities”! IPSO do now seem to be getting their act together as well. Did you see their “open letter to publishers” last month?
No doubt I will have more than a few bones to pick with David’s article last weekend, not to mention the subsequent one by Victoria Woollaston. Is that one your responsibility too? For the moment though, perhaps we can pick up where we left off last summer?
Thanks for your information about the long term Arctic sea ice trend and the NSIDC extent numbers. However the article in question also states:
“Figures from the Danish Meteorological Institute suggest that the growth has been even more dramatic. Using a different measure, the area with at least 30 per cent ice cover, these reveal a 63 per cent rise – from 2.7 million to 4.4 million square kilometres”.
Where did David get those DMI numbers from? I asked the DMI, and even they didn’t seem to know!
Best wishes,
Jim Hunt
Them:
In the absence of any response from John I called the Mail offices on January 26th 2015. It seems John is out of the office for the next two weeks. His PA is now looking into matters for me.
Us:
I sent a further email to John and Poppy on February 2nd 2015:
Them:
Dear Jim,
If you have a complaint about last Sunday’s article, you should set out exactly what it is. If you disagree with any opinions expressed you are welcome to write a letter that we will consider for publication.
You mention that you have sent us a number of inquiries recently. The only other, to my knowledge is that you wanted to know the source of some data that David Rose mentioned in an article some months ago. David Rose told me it came from the official website. Perhaps my colleague Poppy Hall can find it for you since David is probably unwilling to help after your insult.
Best regards,
John
Us:
Dear Poppy (and John)
Please would you ask David to let me know where exactly, and on which “official website”, he obtained the DMI extent numbers he quoted in his article last Summer?
FYI John, at Poppy’s suggestion I have also emailed the editorial team @MailOnline. They have yet to even acknowledge receipt of my email of January 26th.
Best wishes,
Jim Hunt
Them:
Dear Jim,
David is unable to find the table with the numerical data. But he says that the graph here from the DMI website makes it clear that if you look at 30% concentration, the figures he gave were correct.
I hope this answers your query.
Kind regards,
Poppy
Us:
Dear Poppy,
Just to clarify, the facts of the matter are that David Rose did NOT obtain the DMI numbers he quoted last summer from a “table with the numerical data” on an “official website”?
Needless to say we are unimpressed by the following explanation:
Them:
The Danish Meteorological Institute shows a 63% increase in Arctic sea ice extent since the same date in 2012, and an increase of 76% since the 2012 summer minimum. Current extent is 4.4 million km², up from 2.7 million km² on August 28, 2012.
My methodology is similar numerically to DMI’s, I used maps from the Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency to generate the map below. Green shows ice gain since the same date in 2012, and red shows ice loss. My calculation shows a 64% increase in ice, almost identical to the calculations from DMI.
A favorite comment from alarmists is “the increase in ice extent is meaningless, because the ice is getting thinner“
They have it exactly backwards. The reason why ice extent is up, is because the ice is thicker.
Mind you I’m not the one proudly proclaiming “ice extent is up, because the ice is thicker.”. Steve/Tony is, but for some strange reason he provides visualisations of extent and age but not thickness!
Them:
Lets put it another way. Age of the ice is a proxy for ice thickness. But, if you don’t believe in proxies, just tell us.
Us:
Les – If you believe in proxies then PIOMAS Arctic sea ice volume for April 2014 was less than April 2012.
If instead you prefer the evidence of your own eyes then perhaps you can explain where all that red stuff in the Beaufort Sea in Steve/Tony’s animation has gone?
If “older, thicker ice is moving towards Alaska” then it looks like it’s melting there, not “accumulating”.
Them:
Mr. Hunt’s evidence…..
“NRL does not warrant or represent this INFORMATION is fit for any particular purpose,”
Us:
Anything/Gail/Sophie – Do you have any idea what this is?
Them:
Here’s a quick summary for people who aren’t following.
SG makes a post comparing 2012 and 2014. Jim argues with SG’s claim of thicker ice by comparing 2013 extent to 2014. When that gets called out, he shows the same silly 2014 plot that has no 2012 plot to compare to…still no valid comparison. After some back-and-forths and tangents, he brings up PIOMAS. When asked to compare thickness in PIOMAS 2012/2014, he avoids the question (twice).
Is there a single metric out there showing 2014 to be worse than 2012?
– Scott
Us:
Here’s a quick summary for you Scott:
Where’s all the “older, thicker ice in the western Arctic” that SG keeps referring to hiding?
Them:
Nice image, Jim. You have chosen a metric. So that’s half the story. Where’s the 2012 equivalent of that image so we can see if SG is wrong about 2014 vs 2012?
-Scott
Us:
Thank you for your kind words Scott.
I haven’t “chosen a metric”. I have nonetheless already shown you one comparison with 2013, using TH’s very own “metric”. To complete the story, and at the risk of repeating myself once again, perhaps you can explain where all the “older, thicker ice accumulating on the Pacific side” that TH keeps referring to is hiding?
The “Shock News” about Arctic sea ice is coming thick and fast as the 2014 melting season reaches its peak. I’ve been debating the meaning all of the various metrics with none other than my old sparring partner “Steve Goddard” AKA Tony Heller. The theory which is mine (in brief!) is that the ice is actually getting thinner and hence travelling faster. As regular Great White Con readers may well suspect by now, Steve/Tony has other ideas. Here are the edited highlights:
Them:
Steve/Tony’s latest Arctic sea ice prophecy is entitled “My Arctic Forecast“, although it’s actually his fourth of the season. Here’s his take:
Arctic ice extent will continue to decline for a couple of days, then a cyclone near the North Pole will begin spreading the ice, and the extent curve will turn back towards the median.
The minimum this summer will likely be close to the 2006 minimum, which was the highest minimum of the past decade.
Us:
My latest Arctic forecast is more short term than yours Tony, and rather more precise too.
“CT area decline of around 180 k over the next two days”. I guess that equates to “CT Arctic sea ice area will reverse and then decline for a couple of days”?
Them:
Gutsy to go with a forecast, but then the great ones risk it to gain the glory.
Us:
Many thanks for your kind words Phil.
Time passes……
CT Area has just come in at 44,288 square kilometers below yesterday. The “turn on the proverbial dime” has come to pass, and there is only another 135,712 to go!
Them:
CT doesn’t measure extent. This post is about extent. Stop being a moron and wasting my time.
Time passes……
I do appreciate you demonstrating so graphically the dissonance and dishonesty of climate alarmists.
Us:
The pleasure is all mine Tony.
I’ve asked this before without receiving an answer, but is there any way for commenters on here to include an image?
Failing that is there any way you might be willing and able to display the graph at my JAXA link here?
You do have a working knowledge of English. Congratulation!
Us:
Thanks for your kind words DedaEda, once again.
A new month means some masks have changed, so the GWC patent pending crystal ball is cloudier than usual. Undaunted the CT oracle hoarsely whispers “Expect a couple more 100 k declines next. Around 225 k in total”
I also have been forecasting for the past three years that the amount of multi-year ice in the Arctic will increase, during a time when Arctic experts were predicting an ice-free Arctic
The difference between my approach and that of Arctic experts, is that I use the scientific method. They rely on superstition about a harmless trace gas. Real Science always beats superstition.
Steve/Tony was good enough to provide me with a link to his new post immediately following its publication, so I was lucky enough to be able to post the very first comment:
Us:
Them:
Jim, thank you demonstrating once again that you and your ilk are complete morons.
Us:
My pleasure Steve/Tony.
Them:
Take a good long look through the archive footage linked to at the top. Try not to inadvertently end up on (un)Real Science!
I wandered over to Twitter a couple of days ago to see if I could persuade Steve/Tony to dig a pertinent comment of mine about Arctic sea ice extent out of the “Real Science” spam folder. Whilst over there I couldn’t help but notice that Andrew Neil had been passing comment on recent events in the Arctic too! According to his Twitter page Andrew is:
Chairman Spectator Magazines (London); ITP Magazines (Dubai); World Media Rights (New York). BBC presenter.
According to his C.V. on the BBC web site Andrew is:
Presenter of the Daily Politics on BBC Two and the Sunday Politics on BBC One.
In a long career in publishing and broadcasting Andrew has been UK editor of The Economist, editor of The Sunday Times, executive chairman of Sky Television and publisher of The Scotsman Group of newspapers.
Fresh from his controversial BBC interview with Ed Davey, the UK’s Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change, Andrew was “tweeting” things like:
@ret_ward Yip. Thought so. You have zero qualifications in climate scientist. But you are an indefatigable propagandist. Take a bow.
In some recent shock news over at the “Real Science” blog “Steven Goddard” asked “Who is Steven Goddard” and then answered himself as follows:
My name is Tony Heller. I am a whistle blower. I am an independent thinker who is considered a heretic by the orthodoxy on both sides of the climate debate.
I’m highly unorthodox, so I’ll consider him as a schizoidal cherry picking pseudo-skeptic instead. Steve/Tony finishes his “coming out” article as follows:
I am more than happy to debate anyone who feels up to the challenge, including the President of The United States. Science works through research and debate – not censorship, propaganda, faith, or intimidation.
Steve/Tony has been blogging about Arctic sea ice again recently. His most recent post is entitled “Does The Arctic Need To Be Prosecuted?“, but it seems he’s unwilling to engage in debate about that topic with me.
Them:
Some climate experts want to make skepticism of junk science a felony, and every day it becomes more clear that the Arctic has no respect for climate models or eminent government scientists. This is shocking, and it is time for the Arctic to be prosecuted. The Arctic is aiding and abetting climate deniers, as well as making obscene gestures towards the world’s leading academics.
NSIDC interactive Arctic sea ice extent graph on July 26th 2014
As far as I am aware there is no law against being a schizoidal cherry picking pseudo-skeptic in the United States of America, or anywhere else for that matter. Please feel free to comment below if you know otherwise and/or think that there should be!
Them:
After a protracted exchange on Twitter a copy of my comment eventually saw the light of day:
My title today refers to the fact that the summer Arctic sea ice forecasting season is with us once again. The ARCUS Sea Ice Outlook (SIO for short) started in 2008, with the aim of gathering together and publishing “community predictions of the September sea ice extent”. The SIO is now part of the recently created Sea Ice Prediction Network, and the deadline for submission for the first set of forecasts of 2014 was June 10th.
I have a professional interest in UK and international energy policy, and as a consequence I have been commenting on the recent attempts of Professor Richard Tol to debunk the so called “97% climate change consensus” elsewhere in the blogosphere. As luck would have it I allowed myself to become engaged in what was supposedly a conversation about that very topic on the What’s Up With That blog. Feel free to read all about it if you’d like to see a pseudo-skeptical gish gallop in full swing:
Whilst over there I couldn’t help but notice that Anthony Watts had left things until the eleventh hour before asking his faithful followers to contribute to the Sea Ice Outlook June survey. I also couldn’t help but notice that despite assurances to the contrary a few short weeks ago (and even after my recent “extra heads up“!) the WUWT “Sea Ice Reference Page” is still sadly lacking in a wide range of information about Arctic sea ice thickness and volume. Consequently I figured I would be performing a valuable public service by bringing this to the attention of Anthony and his readers. Here’s what happened after that:
Us:
Them:
June 10, 2014 at 8:55 am
[snip no, we are not going to have you thread-jack again by pushing your own website and own views – Anthony]
Us:
June 10, 2014 at 9:32 am
Re: @Anthony says: June 10, 2014 at 8:55 am
It’s not my “own views” Anthony. In fact it’s a long list of useful facts and figures for anybody attempting to forecast the future of Arctic sea ice. A long list of useful information still noticeable only by its absence from the WUWT sea ice reference page.
Them:
REPLY: We aren’t forecasting volume, we are forecasting extent, so again, your views that we should pay attention to volume graphs on your website (your favorite hobby horse) in this extent forecasting exercise are irrelevant. Don’t clutter up this thread further – Anthony.
Them & Us:
@wattsupwiththat What’s up with my “commenting style”? What’s up with my “own self” for that matter?
In the absence of a wide range of scientific information concerning the current thickness distribution of sea ice in the Arctic, and after due deliberation about the likely value of the NSIDC Arctic sea ice extent metric in September 2014, Anthony concluded:
A value of 6.12 million sq km will be sent to ARCUS.
The self proclaimed “world’s most viewed site on global warming and climate change”, otherwise known as the “Watts Up With That?” blog, recently published an article entitled “Arctic Sea Ice Appears to Have Reached Maximum And Other Ice Observations”. Since I’ve been speculating about the date of the 2014 maximum Arctic sea ice extent myself I avidly read the article but found myself ultimately somewhat perplexed. There were lots of graphs and charts displayed, but there was no sight or mention of what seems to me the most relevant one of all. The long term trend. Here is an expurgated version of my attempts to bring this oversight to the attention of the Watts Up With Thatters:
Us:
A “dull” comment about Arctic sea ice trends
Them:
Re: Michael Jennings says:
March 26, 2014 at 7:07 am
[snip . . this is dull. Put some content into your contributions or you are just trolling . . mod]
Us:
At the risk of repeating myself, here’s the latest dull content out of NSIDC:
Do you see the blue line heading for the bottom right?
Snow White needs to get up to speed on the Scientific Method: skeptics have nothing to prove.
Rather, the onus is on the alarmist crowd to provide scientific evidence showing that their CO2/cAGW conjecture is true. They have failed miserably.
But there is no scientific evidence supporting their belief in manmade global warming. None at all. Every last climate model has failed. They were all wrong.
The alarmist crowd is fixated on Arctic ice, instead of on global ice cover. Why? Because that is their last forlorn hope; every other climate scare has been debunked. Well, it’s time to debunk the ‘disappearing Arctic ice’ scare, too:
Global sea ice is at it’s 30-year average [the red graph – click in chart to embiggen]. We already know about the polar see-saw, in which the NH and SH poles balance each other out. That effect can be clearly seen in the global ice chart above.
There is nothing either unusual or unprecedented happening. What we observe now has happened before, repeatedly, and to a much greater degree. Rational folks understand that. It is called the climate Null Hypothesis, and it has never been falsified. The Null Hypothesis is a corollary of the Scientific Method. So is the fact that the onus is on those who produce the catastrophic CO2/AGW conjecture, to suport their belief with scientific evidence.
But there is no evidence proving that Arctic ice is in unprecedented decline. None at all. There is no evidence to prove that the current Arctic ice fluctuation is anything other than natural climate variability. Occam’s Razor says that natural variability is by far the most likely explanation.
The Arctic ice scare is just the same as all the other climate scares. It is promoted by religious True Believers, who expect everyone to share in their Chicken Little panic.
But that only works on those who are ruled by emotion, and fright is an emotion. Scientific skeptics, OTOH, are logical, and therefore they are unaffected by the silly ‘Arctic ice’ scare.
Us:
So to summarise, you cannot muster a single chart to refute my assertion about Arctic sea ice decline, let alone “hundreds”.
For your edification, and for that of the writer of the original article who for some strange reason neglected to include a graph showing the long term trend in Arctic sea ice maximum extent, here is one I prepared earlier:
Provisional NSIDC annual maximum Arctic sea ice extent graph for 1979 – 2014
I’m sorry Snow White (or Mr Hunt, if you prefer), but I think that a little courtesy would be in order. I’ve read every word on the link you’ve provided, and the central theme of your original post was that “there was no sight or mention of what seems to me the most relevant one of all. The long term trend [of Arctic sea ice]“. You described more than one attempt to bring this deficit to the attention of WUWT.
Given that Michael D posted on your page at April 9, 2014 at 4:01 pm, politely pointing out that the WUWT sea ice page has just such data presented, it would seem a basic courtesy to either acknowledge his assistance (in this blog or yours) and either thank him, or explain why graph does not answer your criticisms.
I acknowledge that your arguments seem to have moved on to volume now, but they have been addressed by others, and better than I could have done. As an aside, I suppose I could run a blog with limited data about Antarctic sea ice coverage and volumes. I’m sure that I would be criticised, with comments explaining that I was looking at the mural through a microscope, and that the Antarctic buildup cannot be considered in isolation. I think that such criticism would be valid – your thoughts?
Us:
As you can see from the historical record, I asked on more than one occasion for someone to supply a link to “A long term (let’s say 30 years or more) graph for any measure of Arctic sea ice “quantity” showing anything other than a trend in the direction of the bottom right hand corner.” Nobody did. Nobody suggested looking at the WUWT sea ice page either, presumably because no graphs fitting my description can be found on there.
Perhaps “conversation” is somewhat too strong a word? We have somehow managed to engage the Mail on Sunday’s top investigative journalist (AKA David Rose) in a debate about sea ice on Twitter. For some strange reason he tried to change the topic from the Arctic to the Antarctic!
This website uses cookies to improve your experience. We'll assume you're ok with this, but you can opt-out if you wish. Cookie settingsACCEPT
Privacy & Cookies Policy
Privacy Overview
This website uses cookies to improve your experience while you navigate through the website. Out of these, the cookies that are categorized as necessary are stored on your browser as they are essential for the working of basic functionalities of the website. We also use third-party cookies that help us analyze and understand how you use this website. These cookies will be stored in your browser only with your consent. You also have the option to opt-out of these cookies. But opting out of some of these cookies may affect your browsing experience.
Necessary cookies are absolutely essential for the website to function properly. This category only includes cookies that ensures basic functionalities and security features of the website. These cookies do not store any personal information.
Any cookies that may not be particularly necessary for the website to function and is used specifically to collect user personal data via analytics, ads, other embedded contents are termed as non-necessary cookies. It is mandatory to procure user consent prior to running these cookies on your website.
