Arctic ice

[osmposm]

Think of this. If they can know what the ice was in 1870 it would be a much easier thing to have predicted the ice in 2008 and to know the ice extant in 2009. It is very easy to say the ice was at a certain extant in 1870 and very difficult to predict 2008. And now with all this powerful science the AGW scientists are wrong for 2008.

They have absolutely no solid evidence to back up their beliefs. So they know from scant evidence what the ice was like 139 years ago and with all the scientific equipment available today they get it wrong for 2008?

I promised myself I wouldn't, but.....

Bluecon, I did not say that they "know" what the ice extent was in 1870-1953. As I've emphasized, I said that they carefully estimated what they believed it to have been, based on data from many different sources - and most of that complex estimation process (and all of the data collection on which it was based) was done before there was an AGW orthodoxy. I know you've said that you're not interested in who did the work and when: but, please, if the work was done in the 1970s, why would they have felt pressure to fake the figures upwards as you claim?

As for recent 'predictions' for the immediate future state of the ice, of course they were inexact (and some were too low); that is the nature of such estimates. You seem to think that science only deals in solid, incontrovertible facts. This is quite wrong: it constantly hypothesizes and theorizes based on what seems to best fit the best evidence available. We do not know that the sun will rise tomorrow, but past evidence coupled with a fair understanding of the mechanisms involved suggests that it very probably will. That is an easy one, of course; it's rather harder to predict whether or not it will be obscured by cloud when it rises. It is even hard to say for certain if it rose in a clear sky on a particular date in the past: but by seeking out all the available evidence - weather reports, diaries, measurements, anecdotes - it is possible to make a reasonable estimate of the cloud cover at that time and place. Just like the Arctic Ice pre-1953.

Look now at the estimates on the SEARCH (Arcus) website that Gray-Wulff gives the link to above:

Here's the June (using May data) outlook for the 2008 loss - "Of the individual responses that included quantitative outlooks, three (3) suggest a return toward the long-term trend of summer sea ice loss; six (6) anticipate the 2008 extent to be close to the 2007 record minimum; five (5) respondents suggest additional ice loss compared to the 2007 minimum."

And then July (June data) - "Of the 17 responses, all suggest that the extent will remain lower than the historical average (i.e., mean 1979–2000 September values) of 7.0 million square kilometers. Five (5) responses suggested a less dramatic loss than in 2007 (i.e., 4.3 million square kilometers) and closer to the pre-2007 long-term trend of approximately 10% loss per decade. Five (5) anticipate a repeat of the dramatic loss of 2007. Four (4) suggest a loss even greater than that experienced in 2007."

You can see that there is a wide spread of estimates there, both below and above the 2007 minimum. That's right, they disagree - those corrupt, agenda-ridden scientists disagree - and half of them suggested the loss would probably not be as bad as 2007, though still well below mean.

* * * * * * * *

"....and look no mention of AGW, this thread is so much better when it's not an AGW bashing thread"

Iceberg, I know it can be...um...frustrating, but I thought we'd established that this thread was for discussing Arctic Ice in the GW context - we are in the Climate Change area, after all. Isn't it Carinthian's Arctic Ice thread that we're supposed to keep free of GW argument?

Edited July 29, 2008 by osmposm

[Iceberg]

GW discussion is find, but AGW bashing should be left outside in the playground.

Thanks for the scientists estimates.

It sounds like it might be towards the lower end of expectations.

[doctormog]

Just to remind people of a couple of facts.

1) the maximum amount of ice last winter was low. Only one year 1996 I believe had less ice between 1980 and 2000.

2) The amount of ice this summer will be low most likely the second lowest on record.

and look no mention of AGW, this thread is so much better when it's not an AGW bashing thread.

Re. Point 1, I'd call that spin. You equally say that whilst below normal last winter's NH sea ice was the greatest since winter 2002-3. You could also highlight it was the biggest refreeze on the satellite record.

Neither my points not yours are incorrect they simply present the data in two ways. It is only when you combine them you get a more genuine picture, wouldn't you agree?

[Iceberg]

Not really DrMog as the base line period used to determine if it's average or not is 1979 to 2000.

My point was that if it's barely upto even the most minimum of these years then it can hardly be called a high extent year or looking down the barrel of a massive increase in arctic ice.

[bluecon]

I promised myself I wouldn't, but.....

Bluecon, I did not say that they "know" what the ice extent was in 1870-1953. As I've emphasized, I said that they carefully estimated what they believed it to have been, based on data from many different sources - and most of that complex estimation process (and all of the data collection on which it was based) was done before there was an AGW orthodoxy. I know you've said that you're not interested in who did the work and when: but, please, if the work was done in the 1970s, why would they have felt pressure to fake the figures upwards as you claim?

They have stated the exact amounts of ice back to 1870 based on some scant evidence. A classic case of junk science being put forth as fact. They cannot predict the ice extent for 2008 yet they know the exact ice extent for 1870. You really believe that?

And the example were a bunch of scientist guess every possibility and a few are right proves nothing. they could go to the racetrack and pick every pony in the race and somebody would be right.

[Thundery wintry showers]

Yet no doubt if the scientists showed evidence suggesting that global cooling was taking place, you'd think it was the indisputable truth.

[J10]

This thread is getting little long and heated so a new friendly thread is here ->

http://www.netweather.tv/forum/index.php?showtopic=48719