Will the Arctic be nearly ice free this summer?

Everyone knows that the news media is skewed towards the warmie side. Here is a quote from one of them.

Quote by Ross Gelbsan, former journalist: “Not only do journalists not have a responsibility to report what skeptical scientists have to say about global warming. They have a responsibility not to report what these scientists say.”

Now they all think it is their civic duty to mislead people.

Quote by Timoth Wirth, U.S./UN functionary, former elected Democrat Senator: “We’ve got to ride the global-warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing in terms of economic policy and environmental policy.”

Quotes by H.L. Mencken, famous columnist: "The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed — and hence clamorous to be led to safety — by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary." And, "The urge to save humanity is almost always only a false face for the urge to rule it."

This is a genuine effort to scare you and grab our money and take away our liberties. And it is working thanks to a bunch of ‘useful idiots’ (Stalin’s words, not mine).

Quote by Jim Sibbison, environmental journalist, former public relations official for the Environmental Protection Agency: "We routinely wrote scare stories...Our press reports were more or less true...We were out to whip the public into a frenzy about the environment."

And to what end when we get into a ‘frenzy’?

"Fear is the most debilitating of all human emotions. A fearful person will do anything, say anything, accept anything, reject anything, if it makes him feel more secure for his own, his family's or his country's security and safety, whether it actually accomplishes it or not...."

"It works like a charm. A fearful people are the easiest to govern. Their freedom and liberty can be taken away, and they can be convinced to believe that it was done for their own good - to give them security. They can be convinced to give up their liberty - voluntarily."

—Gene E. Franchini, retired Chief Justice of the New Mexico Supreme Court

So what if the North pole is melting? Evidence has it that a glacier covered all of Canada all the way down to Nebraska. It covered places like Chicago, Indiana, and Ohio. They are at least inhabitable areas now. It just shows what is on the minds of those who are trying to scare us. What they are doing obviously isn’t honorable and shows at what lengths these scam artist will go through to get our money and lead us into slavery.

Next they will tell us that Elvis is alive.

Good, let’s absolutely *consider* about this for a moment, shall we? The reason all of the GW Alarmists are now occurring and on about Arctic sea ice extent is seeing that the ’06 – ’07 fall was about forty% higher than the previous biggest 12 months on year decline. So, long-established sense would endorse that, when you’re going to try and blame world Warming for this unexpected, dramatic fall in Arctic sea ice extent, then there must have been a corresponding unexpected, dramatic rise in temperature. But grasp on a minute. This has abruptly happened at a time when the climate has been *cooling*. So, something is causing the current Arctic sea ice decline, it’s unlikely to be the non-existent upward thrust in international temperatures, is it? Oh, and as on your prediction that the Arctic could also be ice free through 2013… A prediction by using a worldwide Warming Alarmist? I’ll take that bet, any day of the week. You lot have not ever been correct about anything else earlier than, so there’s little or no hazard you’re going to start getting it right now! Unluckily, I doubt very so much that you just’d be ready to place your money where your mouth is. I ponder why? As ever with international warming - do not consider the hype.

The prediction was that it "could be NEARLY ice free at the end of 2012 summer" AND it could be but might still take a few more years...not many.

Once again you ask a pointless question just to get attention. You have no interest in the question or answer. I will say again I believe you are a blight on this forum with your BS questions. YA would be a better place if you and your ilk started barking up another tree.

Any prediction is always wrong. Just put it that way. Do you belief palm readers? Same crap... These NASA guys don't know now where their rear end and where their shuttles are. And you think they can predict anything? I wold better go to Aza the Gypsy chick, to find out what the Arctic future holds.

Well look at the date of the original statement 2007 a year of record melt in the Arctic sea ice, his comment (5 year ago) was based on a continuation of that trend (which didn't happen) sea has continued to decline but not at that rate, Zwally's views were not shared by the rest of the scientists at NSIDC, but for some strange reason you don't mention that.

I guess it's the same mindset that sees repeated and pointless questions about Gore's beach side house, a house that is actually in the hills and far above sea level, but you guys do seem to love to beat your little dead horses.

Reference a 5 year old prediction by one scientist as much as you want, will not change the fact that most ice scientists have a period around 2030 as the likely period for a ice free summer in the Arctic.

I guess you could also pretend this graph is going up rather than down.

http://climate.nasa.gov/keyIndicators/index.cfm#se...

Edit for Ian, sure thing here is a NSIDC release from 2007

http://nsidc.org/news/press/2007_seaiceminimum/200...

and another from late 2009

http://nsidc.org/news/press/20091201_AGU.html

This is only a newspaper story but it also quotes 2030 (dating from mid 2011)

This one is from 2010 it uses the phrase 20-30 years (you do the math) this link is also NSIDC

http://nsidc.org/news/press/20101004_minimumpr.htm...

is that enough for you are would you like more

These short term dates like 2011,12,13 etc etc are deniers they are based for the most part on nonsense or the ideas (as in the case of this question) of just one person, while I'm sure such rubbish gets air play on sites like watts, just so they play them so they can play the "look they were wrong again" card, not really sure what you think this proves other than one scientist (Zwally) was incorrect, given that his estimate is wildly short of the official one, so what. As far as this site goes have myself or Pegminer or Trevor or the several others who push 'science' rather than blog tripe ever claimed such a sort term date, no.

In my experience such info is pushed forward by deniers looking for any theory to try and discredit AGW, and to be honest sounding more and more desperate all the time.

About the same chance as Hell freezing over.

----------------------

What a scientist said in an interview should not be held up as a scientific projection unless it is an actual scientific projection. It sounds to me like he was giving a worst-case scenario based on what he was seeing in 2007. The things to focus on here are "At this rate" and "could be nearly".

>>What are the chances of that happening given current Arctic sea ice extent data?<<

Very, very slim... Are you aware that he didn't have access to our current Arctic sea ice extent data when he said that?

>>Which predictions of Arctic sea ice summer disappearance do you put trust in and from which scientists?<<

I don't put my trust in what any one or two people say about *anything* because I'm naturally skeptical. I tend to (hopefully as objectively as possible) listen to what many people are saying about a subject [I do tend to give more weight to what some say than others, based on their expertise/experience in the field of question for example] before I start forming my own opinion on what is most likely to be correct. That is where I came up with my personal prediction of 2025-2045 with it probably being earlier in that range than later.

All that being said, using something like the 2007 quote as an example of climate scientists as a whole being wrong in their predictions and then 'moving the goal posts' is pretty deceptive and maybe even intentionally dishonest. Well, or just not very bright at all...but I usually try to give the benefit of the doubt.

_

The statement he made was literally true, the key portion of the statement was "At this rate...", but that rate did not continue, so the "prediction" if that's what you want to call it, is moot.

It's similar to a statement "If we keep spending like this, we'll be out of money before the end of summer.' If spending patterns change, the statement no longer applies.

EDIT: Call it cherry picking if you like, but it was clearly a statement about what was happening AT THAT TIME. I don't think he wrote a paper stating the ice would be gone by 2012, he just got quoted in an interview with National Geographic. The news media likes to sensationalize things. Ever see "The Great Global Warming Swindle"? If you did, you might remember Nigel Calder talking about how a new ice age was predicted in the 1970's. The only problem was that at that time HE was the person in the news media trying to sensationalize what scientists were saying.

I occasionally get interviewed on television when some "unusual" weather occurs. I almost always try to point out that it's not THAT unusual, that similar things have occurred in the past. That's not really what the news media wants to hear, it's a more interesting story if it's dramatic and unprecedented. It was a very large drop in the summer minimum that Zwally was talking about, and I'm sure National Geographic asked him a question like "The drop in ice from last year to this year was very large, how soon will the ice be gone if it continues like this?" and he gave his CORRECT answer to the question.

Mike,

“AT THIS RATE, the Arctic Ocean could be nearly ice-free at the end of summer by 2012”. This is from an article talking about the amount of ice that melted in 2007. That year over half a trillion tons of the Arctic was lost, had it continued at the same rate then the Arctic would indeed have all but disappeared this year.

Here’s the original article, please read it in context:

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/12/07...

Neither Nat Geo nor Zwally said the Artic would be ice-free by 2012, that’s just your biased interpretation.

From the same article…

“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”.

Why is it so difficult for deniers and skeptics to be honest?

<< What are the chances of that happening given current Arctic sea ice extent data? >>

The chances are as good as zero.

<< Which predictions of Arctic sea ice summer disappearance do you put trust in and from which scientists? >>

The date of 2040 seems realistic enough but I’ll stick with my own prediction of 2048.

I would say the chance is pretty slim. Which prediction do I put my trust in? My own. Arctic sea ice extent is variable and will recover over the coming decades.

@antarctic...Can you link to reference that says "most climate scientist predict an ice free Arctic by 2030?" I have links to predictions for every decade from 2000 to 2100 but not one that says that most scientist say 2030 .

@antactic...Your quote was "most ice scientists have a period around 2030". Do you mean "most scientists at the NSIDC"? Is that there official position. I would actually like something to link to so when 2030 comes and goes and alarmists say "Well, this was only one or two scientists at the NSICD." I can post your reference.