Global Warmists Predicted Ice-Free Ocean by 2013, Instead Ice Increased 60%


Next time you come across a Global Warmist forecast of doom article, consider this bit of BBC doomcrying from 2007.

Scientists in the US have presented one of the most dramatic forecasts yet for the disappearance of Arctic sea ice.  Their latest modelling studies indicate northern polar waters could be ice-free in summers within just 5-6 years.

5-6 years? Why that’s now.

Professor Wieslaw Maslowski told an American Geophysical Union meeting that previous projections had underestimated the processes now driving ice loss.

Summer melting this year reduced the ice cover to 4.13 million sq km, the smallest ever extent in modern times.

We’re doomed! We’re doomed!

“You can argue that may be our projection of 2013 is already too conservative,” the researcher from the Naval Postgraduate School, Monterey, California, explained to the BBC.

You can argue many things. But here is the horror of our current ice-free summer.

Sea ice extent for August 2013 averaged 6.09 million square kilometers (2.35 million square miles).

Not only is there is still plenty of sea ice to go around, but it increased 60 percent since last year.

Days before the annual autumn re-freeze is due to begin, an unbroken ice sheet more than half the size of Europe already stretches from the Canadian islands to Russia’s northern shores.

The Northwest Passage from the Atlantic to the Pacific has remained blocked by pack-ice all year. More than 20 yachts that had planned to sail it have been left ice-bound and a cruise ship attempting the route was forced to turn back.

Much too conservative by far. He should have predicted the end of ice by 2008.

  • Softly Bob

    I’m actually tired now of all the incessant cry-baby wailing by the Global-Warming lobby. I tend to ignore them.

    • PAthena

      Thank goodness there has been global warming from 10,000 years ago, when the last ice age ended! There was also a mini ice age from the middle of the 14th century to the middle of the 19th.
      My present method of “global warming” in the winter is to bundle up, with sweaters, mittens, boots, etc.

  • pdavisnwa


  • ObamaYoMoma

    The problem with the Left is they always come up with stupid cockamamie ideas to push their global agenda on us, i.e., manmade global warming and that multiculturalism and diversity are wonderful, and they then foolishly believe in them. Well manmade global warming has since been proven to be junk science ad nauseum over and over again and multiculturalism and diversity is obviously a recipe for our self-destruction as it runs counter to the age old proven adage of united we stand and divided we fall. It’s the divided we fall part the Left is trying to achieve, so that they can impose their fantasy-based form of social utopianism on us, which is about as feasible as manmade global warming and multiculturalism and diversity. Indeed, Leftism is a very severe mental disease.

    • Wooow Let’s Go

      Urhh actually man made global warming is pretty certainly a real thing. Doesn’t mean I like those damn hippy types but the bastard is real, even if it might be overhyped.

      But seriously, the reason I don’t call myself right or left, is because both sides are friggin nuts. You both say EVERYTHING each side does is wrong, even if it isn’t. Truth is, in this day and age, the left is obviously much much much worse but dude, that doesn’t mean you have your issues right either. Both of you have a lot of screwed up opinions, even if the left is worse…

  • LDMack

    Sweet; I love my global martinis on ice! – shaken, not stirred.

  • kate5778b

    Does anyone take any notice of this any more? Though they’ll still teach this crapology in Education to M.Sc level, I’m sure.

    • objectivefactsmatter

      It’s a real contrived political issue.

      • kate5778b

        Wow, they certainly like to hound people, don’t they?

        Does anyone remember doing that experiment in junior school when you put a load of crushed ice in a glass and then go back to it later and see that it’s melted to only a tiny volume of water?

        We learned that ice is expanded water and when it melts it looks a lot less, it certainly didn’t spill out of the glass!

        • objectivefactsmatter

          They don’t teach objective science to kids any more. Eventually you can get in to some useful classes, after you’ve been indoctrinated on acceptable range of possibility and so forth.

  • Veracious_one

    Al Gore hardest hit…

    • truebearing

      And to think, in solidarity with the polar bears, poor Al Gore had reduced the number of ice cubes he consumed when getting drunk! Think of the untold of gallons of high priced, warm Scotch Al had to swill. The humanity!
      He did maintain his solidarity with the bears in at least one way. He’s still storing blubber like a polar bear.

  • truebearing

    Once again, facts become inconvenient and leave a neat little pile of seal poop on Al Gore’s demogogic head.
    I wonder how many of these global warming morons live in the northern parts of the country. We’ve been getting nailed with long, cold, snowy winters, year after year, and this year is predicted to be very cold and snowy.

  • tkellybal

    The thing about Environmental Activists is that they have no shame about their embarrassingly poor record of predictions and forecasts. They’ve left behind a trail of lies 40 years long and they don’t care. More to come.

    • jeremyjanson

      They also don’t care about how they hurt the poor or their own community or their own country. They are uncaring horrible human beings who love death, despise humanity, and should not be tolerated.

  • BS77

    Global warming may or may not be happening , but it has little or nothing to do with humans. About 20 000 years ago, there were ice caps ten thousand feet thick sitting on top of what is now the Great Lakes….they melted away…there was not one SUV or coal fired plant. The mean out put of the sun, volcanic eruptions and other factors create temperature change. In the 1990s volcanoes shot more dust, gas and smoke into the atmosphere than every jet, car and train in history. Global warming is a hoax, just like the Big Bang and most of the environmental wacko dogma.

    • Wooow Let’s Go

      Fair enough, you’ve kinda changed my opinion on climate, even if living more sustainably (less oil, more wind power and nuclear) doesn’t hurt.

      Look, I don’t think caring about our possible impact on the climate is bad, the issue arises when they obsess over it at the expense of more pressing issues; like islamization, and so on and so on.

      Generally only dumb lefties care about global warming, but that doesn’t mean everyone who cares about it is dumb.


      • Guy Fromage

        I’m all for the greater efficiency and use of renewable resources. The important thing, is not using the force of the state to impose uneconomical options which put us at a net competitive disadvantage with the rest of the world.

        Short of long evolutionary improvement, or sudden revolutionary changes in technology, solar through non-biological pathways is just too expensive. Individual homeowners may be able to trim their energy bills somewhat with solar water heating, but photovoltaic is not practicable without dramatic lifestyle changes for most.

        Wind appears to only be sustained through government subsidy of varying kinds (direct, tax abatement, surcharges on alternatives [see coal plant closures], etc.)

        Nuclear would be a wonderful option, if only the self-appointed prophets of Gaia’s will, would stop blocking every attempt to build new plants.

        Speaking of “renewable,” crude oil is now a renewable resource, thanks to the technology of thermal depolymerization. The end product is still more expensive than that which we pull out of the ground. Eventually, that will no longer be the case.

        • jeremyjanson

          @guyfromage:disqus I’m for more opportunity for all. Efficiency in terms of all costs and benefits is achieved by business naturally, so when you attempt to recast efficiency narrowly in terms of a single resource, you make the whole economy less efficient in the greater, more real sense that is beyond your narrow, ignorant understanding.

          • Guy Fromage

            Try again. That made no sense. The only thing that came through clearly was an insult, which is par for you, I expect.

          • jeremyjanson

            All costs and benefits versus one cost and benefit – you obviously have a low IQ. There, now you’ve been insulted!

          • Guy Fromage

            That you think you can judge a person’s IQ from a few internet message postings, suggests why you are so credulous as to fall for the warmist propaganda. You are either easily fooled, or have an ego heavily outsized for education or experience.

            Of course, both could be true, and probably are.

      • jeremyjanson

        “even if living more sustainably (less oil, more wind power and nuclear) doesn’t hurt”

        Actually it does hurt. It puts millions of people out of work, infringes on freedom, and destroys American industrial production (especially wind). It increases cost on those least able to pay it, while tearing down community after community with lost tax revenue, lost commerce and lost opportunity. At not time is this real cost to the poor ever considered by “sustainability” types, and in failing to do so, they may find their own position in society unsustainable and their eventual fate gruesome.

        Sustainability creates a world where anyone who doesn’t have can’t get, and all children grow up knowing there is nothing in this world for them. It also is about creating a world where nothing will be invented or created, and it is better for mankind to be EXTINCT than to live in such a world.

  • Gamal

    About half the radiation of the sun is infrared. I don’t understand why water vapor and carbon dioxide don’t cause global cooling by reflecting that infrared radiation back at the sun. I did read an article on the NASA web site that said that clouds overall cool the climate for that very reason. I also read an article by Dr. Bonfils from Livermore laboratories that said that areas that are irrigated are cooler than areas that aren’t. One would expect evaporation of water to cool but why doesn’t the increased water vapor offset that cooling if water vapor warms the climate?

  • Ulrick

    Their overall prediction was sound
    Both articles claimed that Arctic sea ice extent grew 60 percent in August 2013 as compared to August 2012. While this factoid is technically true, it’s also largely irrelevant. For one thing, the annual Arctic sea ice minimum occurs in September – we’re not there yet. And while this year’s minimum extent will certainly be higher than last year’s, that’s not the least bit surprising. As University of Reading climate scientist Ed Hawkins noted last year,

    “Around 80% of the ~100 scientists at the Bjerknes [Arctic climate science] conference thought that there would be MORE Arctic sea-ice in 2013, compared to 2012.”

    The reason so many climate scientists predicted more ice this year than last is quite simple. There’s a principle in statistics known as “regression toward the mean,” which is the phenomenon that if an extreme value of a variable is observed, the next measurement will generally be less extreme. In other words, we should not often expect to observe records in consecutive years. 2012 shattered the previous record low sea ice extent; hence ‘regression towards the mean’ told us that 2013 would likely have a higher minimum extent.

    • jeremyjanson

      No sir, it was not, because their overall prediction for many years was a decrease in sea ice, which has not happened. You can hide behind big words all you want, but what you wrote actually says is a dead cat bounce, but there was no bottom for it to bounce up off of and the cat ain’t dead – it simply INCREASED IN GENERAL AS A TREND.