« Sea ice loss 2012: what do the records mean? | Main | Models are improving, but can they catch up? »


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.


It's the same thing over at WUWT or at Judith Currys Blog. She predicted "that there will be an earlier than usual sea ice minimum this year, with the minimum not getting much lower.".

Well, we did not see an early minimum and sea ice extent dropped by a huge amount from 4.0 to 3.4 mio km² since then. And it is still not clear if we reached the minimum yet.

For your other question on the DMI SST map. One explanation could be, that the white area indicates ice and temperatures below 0°C. Sea water freezes because of the salty water not at 0°C but at around -1.8°C. This would then also explain, why the SST anomaly map doesn't show the same white areas, because even if SST is below zero, you could still calculate an anomaly value.
But to know for sure, one would have to ask the people from DMI.

Espen Olsen

For general information:


Remko Kampen

Bastardi is no rookie at climate revisionism. Don't underestimate. He knows very well what is going on.

Espen Olsen

There is obviously a niche in the market for the stories he can produce, this regardless of its content.

Peter Ellis

Reasonablemadness: That seems very likely to be the answer given that the colour scale stops at zero. I've emailed the given contact address to ask why there's a difference in the masked area.

Rob Dekker

DMI's "anomaly" plot gives the correct ice cover.

There is no excuse for Joe's deliberate use of an obvious mistake in one of DMI's plots, with the sole purpose of feeding his public what they want to hear, regardless of reality or truth or reason.

Can we elect Joe for the "climate misinformer of the year" award ?

Seke Rob

Referring Remco's comment, not sure he truly does comprehend, but if he does, a mendacious sleaze of the worst kind. Seconded but for an ex aequo of CFOTY award. He'll no doubt proudly shows it off with accompanying dismissive rant.

Seke Rob

CMOTY of course.

The other abused chart in regularity is the DMI 80N temp chart giving the melt period's temps red wiggle in summer months as proof of no warming [well what happens when there's melt going on with near surface temps]. Too stupid to be true that it's done.

Remko Kampen

Seke Rob, Bastardi knows the Arctic sea ice is in the death spiral. Impossible to miss the fact. 'Joe Bastardi found a cherry', yes, in other words Bastardi is really admitting the fact - and he's looking around in the muck to find any scrap to lie and deny with. This is not naievety, it is the same ole malice I term climate revisionism.


By failing his predictions miserably, Bastardi maligned himself so much in a fox hole no one would want to be in, where he can't get out but by exaggerating or lying. What is important for himself and his ilk is the audience they serve, not scientific process which in this case requires at least 2 agreeing sources of information. They are PR revisionists cheerleaders for a false reality. I congratulate Neven exposing this, it serves the wider non specialized audience well.


Judith Curry is another case altogether, where she gets the idea that the ice will recover earlier is beyond my wildest imagination. There is and was a huge persistent cloud cover over the entire Arctic. SST's and surface temperatures are not conducive at all for an early refreeze. There has been some cooling over extreme North of the continents, but only happened a few days ago. Again she serves Bastardi's audience, it seems they are eager to believe in anything but reality.


Joe Bastardi is a tough call. He is so ignorant of basic science, that it is difficult to tell if he is the sleaziest liar on the denier circuit, or just a pathetic poster boy for willful ignorance. As evidence for the latter, read his comments and the replies here:


Be sure to note that he "contributes" to the comments on the thread - amazingly dumb.


Bastardi is, for lack of a better word, a buffoon. He is a climate clown. He makes huge, sweeping, grandiose forecasts about climate that never come to pass--global cooling is coming soon, next month will be far colder than this month, the ice will fully recovery this winter, a great global ice age is going to creep up on us any minute now. But he then never displays humility, never stands up to admit that he missed by a mile and that he was wrong. To Bastardi and his sycophants, the absence of so much as a single sign indicating that we're speeding toward his Great Hoped-For But Always Just Around The Corner Fantasy Cooldown is evidence that it's even more imminent than ever.

I used to maintain a list of Bastardi's blown climate (and weather) forecasts, but I stopped when the fun ran out--that is, when it became too much like stealing candy from a baby, as his misses were more numerous than his hits. I tend to do nowadays what so many others do: simply ignore him.


D'Aleo, Watts, Bastardi,Coleman. There is s trend.

R. Gates

Joe's cherries may be sweet for those eagerly hoping for something- anything to get around the basic historical events we are seeing unfold before our eyes in the Arctic. And though the cherries may be sweet for the fake skeptics and deniers, they are also psychotropic, and are causing many to have an unreal perception of reality. In this regard Joe and the other two Arctic Sea Ice Stooges, Goddard and Watts, are dangerous because they help to distract and can even prevent serious policy from moving forward because of their side-show antics. But perhaps this is their whole intent...

Espen Olsen

R. Gates,

"But perhaps this is their whole intent..."

That is what they are paid for! And probably a similar slush fund as the Nicaraguan one?

Chris Alemany

I'm looking for the tweet now... has he deleted it? When was it tweeted?


"Judith Curry is another case altogether, where she gets the idea that the ice will recover earlier is beyond my wildest imagination."

She was seriously off that day. That whole "Week in Review" was a tour de force of cognitive dissonance. I'm afraid there's no getting around the realization that one of our few scientifically trained "skeptics" is on the Confirmation Bias Express to Goddardtown.


He's in for more bad news. The CT area tcked up slightly today but the anomaly jumped over 2.5M.

More bad news coming to a Denier near you over the next week.

It's a sad day when we have to be glad for something we never wanted to see, so that it will shut up the venial voice.


Chris Alemany, here's one of his Twitter posts about ice growing rapidly back.


Bastardi's prediction of a big jump in extent within 10 days was posted on the 6th, so by Sunday we will know how his predictive skills hold out against reality.


Did anyone see Bastardi's long article in something called PatriotPost? http://patriotpost.us/opinion/14736

Frankd 1977

Hey Neven, Bastardi used your profile picture in the article.
http://patriotpost.us/opinion/14736 The link reads "Here is a picture of a submarine surfacing at the North Pole". What literary flair he has!
BTW Neven, what is the significance of your profile picture?

Climate Changes

Bastardi may be a clueless bafoon but he has you lot talking about him. Even this blog is dedicated to his bafoonery. If his cherry picking was a PR stunt, then he has succeded.

Chris Reynolds

Bastardi? Zzzzzzz...

Boring and increasingly irrelevant. Like the rest of the denialists.

Charles Craver

NeilT, actually CT is now showing a new record low of <2.24.



I googled the content of the PatriotPost article to see who else ran that article. The results were interesting -- it included several far right publications. My conclusion is that this is not a matter of ignorance; rather Bastardi is writing what this particular audience wants to believe. Put another way, his interest is in bolstering a political movement rather than furthering a science based dialog.

Jim Williams

I agree with Chris. I never paid attention to the denialists before, and I see no reason to pay attention to them now.

The alarmists, on the other hand...

Lewis Cleverdon

The subject is more than a clueless bafoon as AJP describes him, he is a dangerous clown who is well paid for his performances in a circus of denial & rebuttal. I've no reason to assume that he's aware of the actual dynamic he's serving, but it should be very obvious to all that his conduct maintains a constant polarization and mutual fixation on that circus.

This doesn't merely maintain denial and uncertainty in a fraction of the public or just mop up activists time and morale - it provides an highly seductive distraction from questioning official conduct since 2000 on the critically relevant climate foreign policy.

Since ASI is avowedly a science forum, and the clown is very definitely engaged in politics, it seems a shame to respond on his level by feeding the swine with yet more scientific pearls. I'd like to see clear forensic analysis here of just how well the clown and his ilk have provided a veil that supposedly justifies the White House's utter lack of significant action in the US, and that neatly obscures its commitment to the actual bipartisan climate foreign policy of a 'brinkmanship of inaction' with China, that purposely obstructs the requisite treaty.

Or shall we let the clowns lead us round in circles once more, just like they do every other site from HuffPo to Real Climate ?



Espen Olsen

Dont be fooled, this guy know exactly what he is doing, he is like a second hand car dealer who cant tell the truth, if he wants to get paid for what he is doing!!


I only give attention to Joe Bastardi once a year, around this time. Give me a break. Okay, I gave Christy some attention too last week. Give me another break. :-)

I don't know, I quite like Bastardi, even though he misleads people with his bravado. I still have hope that he and Watts own up and acknowledge the seriousness of the disappearance of Arctic sea ice. For Goddard I have no hope, although he probably is the smartest of the three.

This tweet was really bad, I couldn't let it slide. I know memes get spread even further by trying to dispute them, but this is so bad that people with a minimum of intelligence and integrity see what's going on.

BTW Neven, what is the significance of your profile picture?

I use it because of the meme that fake skeptics have spread to mislead people into thinking that this is something that is happening every few decades.

That picture of the USS Skate wasn't taken at the Pole, and even if it were (there is a picture from March 1959, I believe), that doesn't mean a thing, because there are leads in the Arctic ice pack in winter, as there have always been. Arctic sea ice doesn't form one huge slab, but gets divided by winds and currents all the time. So in theory, a submarine could have surfaced there under the right conditions at any time since the Arctic sea ice exists. Now if it were a picture of a ship that sailed there... I guess we could see that soon.

Maybe some people who are in doubt because of the FUD-propaganda of Watts, Goddard or Bastardi (poor souls) see my profile picture and wonder: 'But if this is proof that all of these records in the Arctic are nothing special, then why is that alarmist Neven using it as his profile picture?'

And then they start investigating and soon learn that...

Arctic sea ice is bad for fake skeptics. When it melts, they melt too.


I've been writing to my MP about BBC coverage and doing Tweets to the BEEB.

But a more weighty campaign has entered the ring. See Petition to the new BBC Director General on climate change coverage.

The examples that the campaign gives are quite shocking.




This inevitable comes to mind.

She was "greener" than most denialisti, though


Espen - used car dealers - here's the all time standard from the "School for Scoundrels" Bastardi isn't this good....


I'll be good from now on.....


Can't watch Youtube here, dabize. But I'll check it out once I get back (about 4 days from now).

Espen Olsen


I see, just wanted to explain it in a way so the general public would understand!


Neven, doesn't sound like you are in suburban Zagreb.......more like Vukovar, 1991.

Susan Anderson

Dr. Curry has been heard to say it "plays well in Georgia". That about says it.


Joe, Joe, Joe.... What better inspiration than he to write an actually factual blog on sea ice. *Hat tip to Neven and all the others here who do so.*

Keep up the drum beat, guys and gals. Actual information is like bright lights to Nazgul for these guys.

As for the witch hunters like Joe who attack the scientists. Well, history doesn't tend to favor blindness, ignorance, or rage.


Bingo Avocet:

"rather Bastardi is writing what this particular audience wants to believe."

Facing certain humiliation contrarians and followers fantasize until winter frost cheers them on.

I would agree to ignore them when they become completely discredited even amongst their tribes, it is good to keep watch and expose when they influence ignorance on so many. This rapid response to utter despicable propaganda is necessary.

Martin Gisser

I still have hope that he and Watts own up and acknowledge the seriousness of the disappearance of Arctic sea ice.

Vain hope. Neven, I thought you've learned a bit in the last years. These guys are psycho, plain and simple. And they will just get more psycho over time. A death spiral of psychosis. I bet they will instead just declare the Arctic unimportant or nonexistent.

Steve Bloom

"Arctic sea ice is bad for fake skeptics. When it melts, they melt too."

Nope, it's on to the next lie.

Lewis Cleverdon

Neven - my apologies. I'm grieved to have written so poorly that you should think my comment on addressing the fabricated circus of denial was sniping at your running of this outstanding site.

Far from it, my hope was to generate discussion among commenters here of just what is the function of that circus in the continuation since 2000 of the bipartisan US climate policy. Maybe the question needs putting the other way round :-

- Could the bipartisan US climate policy of a brinkmanship of inaction with China have continued under Obama without the fabricated circus of denial and rebuttal ?

With my thanks for your outstanding efforts,



Thomas T

"Nope, it's on to the next lie."

Antarctica, for one.

Seke Rob

That old hat was already broached on briefly today... maybe JB hooks up with SG and they concert to have it snow CO2 again (something that is thought to just have been analyzed as happening on Mars). A classic Antarctic claim read is that the circumpolar current there prevents the sea ice to grow further... ripping at it. The myth debunk list needs expansion and link posted in everywhere debunkers drop in wherever possible.

peter prewett

Do not forget these denialists/meteorologists are employees.

If they were not saying what the paymasters/advertisers want they would not have a job.


You don't need to go to a different website to find the sea ice concentration. DMI/COI, the place Bastardi got his picture above, has a map of sea ice concentration:


It shows the same ice extent that everybody else has - with less ice now than at the end of August.

Bastardi had to intentionally choose "sea surface temperature" in order to get that map above.

Incidentally, I emailed someone a few days ago at DMI/COI for clarification about the coloring of what at first glance looks like ice on Bastardi's picture. Dr. Jacob L. Hoyer was kind enough to reply:

"Hi Robert,
I admit it can be difficult to see, but actually the light gray color is in the colorbar, in the triangle to the far left.
This means that all temperatures (including sea ice) below -1.7 are marked light gray.
Hope this helped.
Best wishes,

The website "Climate Realists" re-posted Bastardi's tweet (he's been posting this all week actually) and when I pointed out Bastardi's error, a surreal exchange took place with the site admin. They apparently don't care that it's sea surface temps and not sea ice:


Unreal doesn't begin to describe it.


Ode to the Apoplectic Skeptic

Joe Bastardi found a cherry,
Making Joey very merry.
And that cherry that he found
Was quickly picked, then passed around.
And skeptics, in their desperation,
Danced and screamed in jubilation,
For that cherry, they were told,
Was evidence of coming cold.
"The ice is back!" Bastardi's shout.
"It's cooling fast, without a doubt!
And someday, right around the bend,
This 'Global Warming' lie will end!
And ice will come in lofty sheets
While wooly mammoths roam the streets!
And best of all--I promise you--
We'll hear no more of CO2!"

But poor Bastardi--foolish chap--
Had never learned to read a map.
Through ignorance and wishful thinking,
Joe had erred: the ice was shrinking.
Yes, this climate malcontent
Was unaware that ice extent
Continued melting, never ceasing;
Arctic ice was still decreasing.
The question, then: should Joe admit
His Arctic knowledge deficit?
Or should he sing his normal song,
Proclaiming that those maps were wrong?
Alas, he did what "skeptics" do:
He wrote a bunch--sans peer review--
That scientists had missed, not he...
Then climbed back up his cherry tree.

Dan P.

bravo, jim pettit. masterfully done.


There is one point to consider. To get to know what Bastardi et al say and who there target audience is, is important. The reason is simple. The media and politicians always need the opposite view point (especially if it is politically advantageous). Too many times debates between truth and myth have been gone into with the truth side believing the truth will win in the end. That is not always the case or it has taken far too long. See the tobacco industry delaying antismoking laws claiming no proof of cancer. Here we have the very same problem. Solving the CO2 crises would mean the death of the huge profits gained by the oil/gas giants, petrochemical industry and the pharmaceutical industry (it uses masses of amounts of CO2). Industry knows, understands, preparing for and WANTING global warming to happen, because of the huge profits they see down the road for them. Just like large tobacco targets youth.
A hot earth means far larger energy usages (blackouts because of energy usage happen on the hottest days). So even if they get forced into using more eccofriendly energy supplies they are still the big winners because everyone will be using far more energy. Drive those temps up and use Bastardi et al as your pitch men.
Heres hoping we can stop them before they kill too many of us either through what GW has in store for us or the scarier visions I have is the human propensity to use a more deadly means to fix the problem. Small example is the Asian carp in the Mississippi on it way to invade the Great Lakes. Pollution in river causes massive algae killing off fish. Bring in Carp to eat algae. It does so well that it runs out of algae then turns to small fish to supplement diet which then in turns kills all the big fish . Suddenly river has very little living organisms left other then Carp. The Carp will die.
Human finds way to cool the earth. Uses it. It becomes a runaway freight train that does far more damage then GW, because it can not be controlled. Tends to be the cheaper the solution the worse the consequences. When you are an island nation about to disappear with a low economy. They will use it and let tell the rest of the world it was all their faul;t because GW was wiping them out of existence.
(must be very depressed tonight)



You poetry deserves a much wider audience, permission to promulgate? (with proper sourcing of course)



Bastardi seems like a possible shill. But whatever he might be I was wondering if an ever earlier minimum extent might actually be worse than an ice free period in September? Significant enough ice loss in June and July would surely mean less reflection/protection at the most significant time. Wouldn't that possibly absorb more solar radiation than complete ice loss in September?
It's difficult to imagine that it all wont lead to zero all too soon... but the idea that the minimum is early... that doesn't seem less significant at all. It might even be more significantly a sign of the imminent anthropogenic collapse of arctic sea ice.

Dominik Von Lavante

Found something interesting at the HYCOM ice thickness plots: Apprently the entire multi-year ice is fracturing up so badly that one can see the fissures in satalite images!


Is this normal?

Peter Ellis

Firstly, that's a model output, not a satellite image. Secondly, yes, it's quite common for this model to show fissures and cracks forming across the pack. Generally they seem to be much larger scale than real leads, and don't correspond well to visible leads via MODIS.

In the validation document, they mention these as evidence that the ACNFS model has more realistic ice dynamics than previous models - i.e. that the modelled ice can crack (even if not precisely where/when the real ice cracks), where previous models had it deforming more plasticly.
http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA533205 (pages 48/49)

Timothy Chase


The reference to "NowCast" in the link indicates that what we are looking at is coming from a model, a model that in this case isn't being used to forecast the more distant future but fill in the blanks on the present or forecast the very near term future by synthesizing the data that is available. A bit like PIOMAS can be used to synthesize data by modeling the present. Integrating the data, but doing so at the price of going beyond it with the risk that entails.

Chris Biscan


Holy Mother of God.

That guy arguing with you is not of our reality.

What the ???

Account Deleted

I suggest that you are all making a huge but flawed assumption.
what if these people have a different outcome to that of propagating information. what if their primary outcome is to generate site traffic numbers? you can make money no matter what rubbish you publish if you get enough people visiting the page. the same thing occurs in health and nutrition blogs, people say the most appalling rubbish and people read it and often believe it.


Rob and Chris,

But one can be happy that they do not execute people these days, like back in the good old days when someone "claimed" that the earth was flat.

Seke Rob


Hey, average thickness per the flat earth society is 7000 km still. In musical terms, it's weekend afterall, Thomas Dolby, The Flat Earth: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cNIQrIXlrNw

The continents are not drifting apart as you know... the planet is growing from the inside http://www3.bc.sympatico.ca/Moon/continent.html

Seke Rob

Re Philip | September 15, 2012 at 12:23

"Climategate" mail server breach and publication was fine, but Heartlandgate was not by their own inimitable logic. Mr. Toninô is said to be / have been pay-rolled by them to the tune of 88 grand per annum. Documents infer to explain why Toninô is frantic now, because he only received the first tranche of 44K and Heartland not wanting [performance]/able[the backfire mass murder add vaporizing support funds from the Koch et all corner] to pay him the second tranche. They're desperate to get clicks, one of the reasons I categorically refuse to visit those tripe sites. For the rest, it's a sanity thing... many belong in a mental institution of the cuckoos nest type. Attempting to argue is pointless, they'll just hand flap it aside.



Is that a variant of Mark Twain's argument that the Mississippi will one day be 1.75 miles long?

To wit:

"In the space of one hundred and seventy-six years the Lower Mississippi has shortened itself two hundred and forty-two miles. That is an average of a trifle over one mile and a third per year. Therefore, any calm person, who is not blind or idiotic, can see that in the Old Oolitic Silurian Period,' just a million years ago next November, the Lower Mississippi River was upwards of one million three hundred thousand miles long, and stuck out over the Gulf of Mexico like a fishing-rod. And by the same token any person can see that seven hundred and forty-two years from now the Lower Mississippi will be only a mile and three-quarters long, and Cairo and New Orleans will have joined their streets together, and be plodding comfortably along under a single mayor and a mutual board of aldermen. There is something fascinating about science. One gets such wholesale returns of conjecture out of such a trifling investment of fact."

Seke Rob

[In RdN posture]Talk'n to me? I suppose so [saw a post with the Mississippi extrapolation in another thread somewhere earlier on this blog]. Wish the guy on Denialdepot was more active in creating these thorough mockeries of the denialocampers... we're in for a triple recovery and next year, who knows, we'll be presented with the Arctic Phoenix resurrection.

In real numbers, down to earth, the CT-SIA day before went to -23.1% area below the 2011 final record, and many thinking we're not done yet [just watching the hen top of the bell-tower]. P

P.S. Photobucket is now completely cooked, no refreshed records matrix to show ... any update chart image is now deleted in nanoseconds, in the conspiracy to suppress the inconvenient truth [just kidding].


Thanks, Dan.

Twemoran: You poetry deserves a much wider audience, permission to promulgate? (with proper sourcing of course)

terry, feel free to use it however you like... ;-)

Rob Murphy, the patience you displayed with the fool over at the oxymoronically-named "Climate Realists" site shows that you have far greater tolerance than do I. Nevertheless, your responses were awesome, and showed the illogical shill for what he is.

Seke Rob

Comic Relive [is there a pun here?]




A few comments:

(1) The pharmaceutical industry is a miniscule player in CO₂ generation. If they had to switch to carbon-neutral feedstocks, it would not much affect the cost of pharmaceuticals because the cost of drugs is overwhelmingly determined by value added (research & production) and, sadly, marketing (on which they now spend more than research!).

(2) The broader commodity-chemical industry does generate a significant fraction of all CO₂ (8% of world energy use), but the industry is not as intransigent about maintaining the status quo as the fossil fuel industry. Oil companies used to be big into chemicals, but now chemical companies are more separate and act as consumers of fossil fuels; the two businesses are not nearly as closely intertwined as they used to be. See this presentation to gain a perspective of Dow chemical view, for example:


Colorado Bob

Russian scientists have discovered spots in the Arctic Ocean where mass emissions of methane can be observed.
According to the press-service of the expedition aboard The Viktor Buinitsky research vessel, the diameter of some of the ‘methane fields’ found in the northern part of the Laptev Sea exceeds 1 kilometre.
The new discoveries will help to understand the mechanism of global warming on Earth, experts believe. In their opinion, emissions of methane could have catastrophic consequences for the climate of our planet.

Colorado Bob

The latest position of The Viktor Buinitsky -


found in the northern part of the Laptev Sea -

More than half of the sea (53%) rests on a continental shelf with the average depths below 50 meters (160 ft), and the areas south from 76°N are shallower than 25 m.[6] In the northern part, the sea bottom sharply drops to the ocean floor with the depth of the order of 1 kilometer (0.62 mi) (22% of the sea area). There it is covered with silt, which is mixed with ice in the shallow areas.[1][2][3]


Lewis Cleverdon

D - well spotted.
RIA don't seem very keen to give much detail - three terse paras only.

Can anyone identify what the dirty-looking foam is in the press photo ? CH4 outgassing from seawater plus some sediment brought up by the torus effect perhaps ?

And the interface of foam and seawater appears to have a subduction of the latter occurring along a stable front - again torus ?



Susan Anderson

Jim Pettit poem, nice!
D, how recent is that information, does it add to what is already known? Details?
One is tempted to doubt the more conventional scientific position on methane because they are so cautious about sticking to what they can be sure about. This is correct, but I think the way it is done could be improved.

Our culture rewards certainty over truth. The idea that statements about what is true must by definition be incomplete has been exploited by marketers. This site is particularly rich because it pushes the boundaries of theory by adding in more observations from a wider field, without descending into fiction.

I'm trying to find a more direct way to say we must teach the public to embrace their lack of knowledge rather that fudging to hide it. They are not required to know all this science, but they are required, for the sake of our future, if we are to have one, to acknowledge that wrong certainty is infinitely worse than right uncertainty. Expertise matters more than certainty.

Hope y'all don't mind my meanderings - this idea seems important if we are to get past all the merchants of - not doubt - but certainty about doubt. Not knowing is fine. Substituting falsehood for lack of knowledge is not fine.


Very interesting post over at Chris Reynolds' blog:


Dr Inferno

You all know Joe Bastardi is a wrestler right? Can you toss a large man onto the floor? If not you should probably pay more respect to Joe Bastardi. If he says there's a pretty big increase in ice since August 26th then you sure as hell better believe it. When you are in the ring the fine line between truth and fiction blurs into irrelevance.


@ denialdepot hahahahaha


There is one main difference in the Russian press release between last year and this year.

This year they are saying that the spots have diameters that "exceed" 1 km.


Ouch, Dr. Inferno weighs in. No worries, sir. Just like Anthony Watts, I'll write an update to set the record straight soon. Real soon.

I take my hat off you, sir, as it is an honour to receive you at this humble water melon blog. You are a gentleman.

Seke Rob

The very latest, today Sep.15, 2012 installment over at Dr. Inferno's, makes it more than blatantly clear that he's been reading the ASI blog in detail to gain the ammunition to debunk MMGW. We need a member's only section to keep the convenient truth from his evil works, else this blog is doomed to receive the Infernal condemnation. ;D

Italian lessons, for starters:

Inverno = Winter
Inferno = Hell

Ugo Bardi

Neven, one question: why is Arctic ice loss much more noticeable in summer than in winter?

Bob Wallace

I can answer that one.

We have done most of our looking at extent and not paid as much attention to volume and thickness.

The Arctic does a fairly decent job of skimming over with ice each winter and will continue to do so for a while. That can trick us into thinking that winters are more normal than they actually are.

John Lacorte

Joe is little more than a carnival barker and he does a great job representing the entertainment side of the meteorological industry. Serious meteorologists understand this.

Seke Rob

Ugo Bardi,

So called First Year Ice [FYI] used to get 2 meters thick in winter. No longer. Meteorological spring [March-May] plane flights [IceBridge http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/icebridge/news/spr12/index.html ] research with various radar & sounding instruments have revealed that 1.40 meters and less is what it grows to in winter... that 60 centimeters or whatever the difference, helps [euphemistically] for the additional energy to eat through that 1.4 in summer.

Seke Rob

Here's a link to a site with more detail how the measurements are performed: http://www.arcus.org/search/seaiceoutlook/ice-thickness-data


And I had the pleasure of being Joe's roommate my freshman year at PSU. Who knew I'd wind up knowing a celebrity? ;-) /snark


Wbuawxman: He was a pretty nice guy, right?

Neven, one question: why is Arctic ice loss much more noticeable in summer than in winter?

Hi, Ugo. Like Bob and Rob say: ASI looks less noticeable in winter because up till now (CryoSat-2) we haven't been able to measure thickness properly. Looking from above at two dimensions, measuring either extent or area, you can't see if the ice is 1 metre or 100 metres thick.

Another reason has to do with geography. The Arctic Ocean is surrounded by land masses. So the ice, in winter, can't go any further South in many places. Tamino had a post about this, based on a paper that discussed this theme, but can't remember which one.


Well done Seke and Neven answering Ugo. It is also a matter of comparing the right metrics. Volume being obvious, but only really completely scanned more thoroughly recently. However the perspective to notice is the buildup of winter over the sea ice. How strong it was compared to how intense it is. Last Arctic winter was lame, with numerous incursions of cyclones from the South. This warmed even more the surface air thinning the ice further. It takes air -11 C to cover any relatively calm Arctic sea surface, so until the average surface temperature of the high Arctic approaches near -11 in the dead of winter sea ice extent will be a poor metric to judge climate change during the coldest season.


Just noticed that the JAXA sea ice extent dropped decisively below 3.5 million km2.



I noticed that as well and was surprised. (I figure I can have this explained here.) It looked as if sea ice extent was bottoming out during the last week and now there is a sudden drop. What causes this so late in the season? Is it normal, to be expected? I've also noticed that CT shows a fairly significant expansion of extent in the Fram strait. Is this related to the overall drop?


Dj, look at the strong winds blowing down the Fram. The ice accumulation there probably is broken up and blew there in transit toward Iceland. Likewise, there are strong winds blowing southward on the opposite side of the pole. The cause appears to be four alternating high and low pressure zones surrounding the NP. (You can see the winds and pressures using the overlays on http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/cgi-bin/seaice-monitor.cgi?lang=e )


I thought so the guy is a 2nd hand car dealer:

take a look around the property:



A new Forbes article trumpeting no human derived change in climate and that what is happening is "natural"....



Aargh.....my eyes ...me eyes...should...not...have...read....article...

A4R, reading articles like that do not give me hope for humanity...idiots...all


I am a bit worried about the energy invested (wasted?)in debating with the denialist crowd - even if it may feel good at times. They have all facts at their disposal but have decided (for various reasons)to interpret them in a way that is not logical. I doubt they will change their views. Impacting the general public electing the people with power should be top priority instead, not the hard core denialists.. IMHO..


How is it possible for people to write so ill informed articles on newspapers/magazines? When people say "Its better for human beings, humans thrive in warmer climates".

Several points.

1)Modern humans existed during the last interglacial period. They did not manage to create civilization. One possibility is that that the climate was significantly different from todays (and only by just 1 degree higher than 1950s), which did not allow the onset of agriculture. But this is speculation with no hard evidence if any.

2)1 degree higher than 1950s, we will survive it. 2-3 degrees is huge difference. During the pliocene the climatic conditions were very different compared to todays climate.

3) More than 3 degrees will lead not only to very significant alterations to the climate but also the onset of positive feedback loops which means bye bye coastal cities.

4) Six degrees which is not an impossibility will alsmost certainly lead the clathrate guns to fire. Based on paleoclimatic evidence, this will lead to another 6 degrees more heating. Then we will be lucky if Earth does not become like Venus.

So the cost is 500 trillion dollars. Well guess what, Mars' banks do not accept Us dollars. You need to use them on Earth. And the cost of total inaction is catastrophic.

Janne Tuukkanen

Forbes used not to be a bad magazine. But it leans to one side of political spectrum. Sorry state is, that an issue of science has become a matter of political stance. And in this I accuse the domestic politics of United States to affect discussion all over the world about a process (artificial climatic change) which should be separated from minor issues of a single nation -- however superpower that nation happens to be.


Forbes may or may not be worth smoking out but I think it more fruitful the put pressure on the BBC. After all the British public pay them to tell the truth so I am asking again that you look at the Petition to the new BBC Director General on climate change coverage.

The examples that the campaign gives are quite shocking so please consider signing the petition and perhaps those in the UK could let their MPs know.

Timothy Chase

Devi869 wrote on September 16, 2012 at 21:37:

How is it possible for people to write so ill informed articles on newspapers/magazines?
Devi869 wrote:
So the cost is 500 trillion dollars. Well guess what, Mars' banks do not accept Us dollars. You need to use them on Earth. And the cost of total inaction is catastrophic.
I am not sure I would much stock in that figure. The earliest, most authoritative source I was able to find for that figure was written by the same author in 2009:
The highest estimated costs of a global cap-and-trade regime that I have seen were not from a global-warming skeptic, but the U.N.'s own figure of $552 trillion during the 21st century.

The Cuckoo's Nest Visits Copenhagen (December 7, 2009) By Mark W. Hendrickson

... a far right wing periodical, and the rest of the sources were mostly right wing blogs. I suspect we might be dealing with quote mining on the order of young earth creationists citing Stephen Jay Gould.

Timothy Chase


Sorry, in response to that first sentence I quoted by Devi869 I meant to say "Evidently with plenty of practice."


My, but that is a whole lot of anti-scientific stupidity rolled into a tiny, smelly ball of Forbes-ian blather. In just a few hundred words and a handful of paragraphs, Hendrickson managed to hit on every major denialist "debate" point. How very economical of him! Of course, it clearly doesn't matter one bit to him that every one of those points has been throughly refuted and debunked countless times; for people of his ilk, there's comfort and assurance in simply repeating the same lies as if telling them for the very first time.

Hendrickson is, of course, a huge believer in allowing the powerful hand of the unrestrained free market to take the world where it needs to go. Nevermind that that hasn't worked out so well, either; if you just say it often enough, it becomes part of the very fabric of your skewed reality. Here, read this quote from Hendrickson's piece on the oh-so-silly progressive "infatuation" with "unnecessary laws" and regulations:

"Some will say that Wall Street professionals cannot be trusted to do the right thing. ...We respectfully disagree. There is abundant evidence that the vast majority of people who work in the financial industry are upright, honorable, and trustworthy."

So in Hendrickson's world, there's "abundant evidence" that the very people who took the world economy to the brink of catastrophe just a few years ago through rampant greed are all stellar citizens not driven by a lust for profit but rather by care for every man. Yet there's no evidence whatsoever that the planet is warming, or that that warming is caused mostly (if not wholly) by CO2, or that that CO2 is from our unimpeded burning of fossil fuels.

Yeah, I see what you did there, Hendrickson. Well played, sir!


Yeap. Nobody has any idea what the cost will be. Actually if sufficient funds were directed to

1)Liquid Thorium Reactors
2)Breeder Reactors
3)Fusion reactors
4)Wind and Solar

then the funny part is that these technologies would be far far cheaper than oil and NG and on parity with Coal.

We know how to build bad reactors. We need to learn how to make good reactors (low waste and high safety). And than needs investment.


@Geoff, I've started passing that link out to my usual contacts and they are signing it.

AS to the whole Forbes bag of smelly stuff? They're supposed to know how the economy works. Transition costs are initially high and then the economy moves to a different track and continues to make money. There will always be money for companies and people to make.

The biggest losers will be those who won't change. That is common throughout history.

Sometimes I wonder if we are not our own worse enemies by not understanding how the people and the media interact.

So this year there will be news and fanfare as the Arctic ice does another 2007. The real story (non exceptional circumstances so it's volume not weather as the driver), will never be heard. But that's par for the course. However, next year, even if it does exactly the same again with nothing worse, it won't hit the news.

Now this is a disaster because getting the same result as 2012 two years running is a SIGNIFICANT

Jim Williams

Devi869, see: http://pesn.com/2012/09/13/9602179_LENR-to-Market_Weekly_September13/ (and other reporting).

The field seems to still be under the radar, but at this point I don't know why. Might be because some of the players are very colorful people. Not ready to bet on any particular company, but I am willing to bet on Cold Fusion.


GRRR all thumbs and a stupidly slow connection.

Escalation of the situation. However the people will see it as normal. So when another huge drop happens again, the ground work is not done to explain how large a disaster this really is. So we actually build up bad news for ourselves by not being consistent in following up and making the press follow up.

Think it can’t happen? It already has. Just check out the news on the Wilkins Ice shelf. The mass breakout, the ice bridge collapse. Loads of news, big story, huge “so what, whatever, tiny amount of ice” from the denialospher. But when the bridge did go and the massive breakout behind it happened, what did we hear? Nothing, zip. It was a HUGE story but nobody ran it because our community did not force it. OK so we expected it but we did not Communicate it.

Because this happens time and time again it gives legitimacy to people like Bastardi who choose to present a false picture. People believe him because all they ever see is “shock news” with no follow up. So they believe that “nothing ever happened”.

We have to change that way of communicating or we will live to see the worst scenario possible because people like Bastardi will win this game of “tell the people”. Remember he’s telling them what they want to hear. We are telling them something they seriously do NOT want to hear.

The comments to this entry are closed.