BBC News 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.
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.
Remarkably, this stunning low point was not even incorporated into the model runs of Professor Maslowski and his team, which used data sets from 1979 to 2004 to constrain their future projections.
In the end, it will just melt away quite suddenly
Professor Peter Wadhams
“Our projection of 2013 for the removal of ice in summer is not accounting for the last two minima, in 2005 and 2007,” the researcher from the Naval Postgraduate School, Monterey, California, explained to the BBC.
“So given that fact, you can argue that may be our projection of 2013 is already too conservative.”
…Former US Vice President Al Gore cited Professor Maslowski’s analysis on Monday in his acceptance speech at the Nobel Peace Prize ceremony in Oslo.
It’s 2013. Nothing to see here. Big Brother Global Warming wasn’t wrong.
John Ransom: A reader last night posted an article via Reddit that dug back into the BBC archives from 2007.
It was the journalistic equivalent of a high school yearbook photo of the Global Warming crowd sporting mullets in 1987, complete with high tops and black jeans.
“Scientists in the US have presented one of the most dramatic forecasts yet for the disappearance of Arctic sea ice,” said the BBC article. “Their latest modelling studies indicate northern polar waters could be ice-free in summers within just 5-6 years.
Professor Wieslaw Maslowski told an American Geophysical Union meeting that previous projections had underestimated the processes now driving ice loss.”
The article was very dramatic but… it also contained many of the hokum, nostrums and fake ‘ems that we’ve all grown used to with decades-long global warming alarmism.
The article was propped up by many impressive sounding titles and contained acronyms and experts that in subsequent years we have all learned to have little faith in. Their predictions have been less reliable than Republican pollsters handicapping a presidential race.
The researcher in the BBC article, Wieslaw Maslowski , we are told, worked at the Naval Postgraduate School, Monterey, California. His “group includes co-workers at NASA and the Institute of Oceanology, Polish Academy of Sciences (PAS).”
And, of course, what attempt to frighten people over global warming would be complete without a cameo appearance from Al Gore? I guess we all NEVER get tired of Al Gore sounding off on Global Warming.
In what today would pass for a punch line of a good joke rather than serious science, the BBS, er, BBC concluded with this high point: “Former US Vice President Al Gore cited Professor Maslowski’s analysis on Monday in his acceptance speech at the Nobel Peace Prize ceremony in Oslo.”
Ha, ha, ha.
Because those projections of an ice-free Arctic Sea, with dachas lining sugar-sand beaches in Northern Canada, all reposing in a warm, tropical breezes, made audible only by the sound of palm trees rustling…well, that prediction was just a tad premature.
The ice, it turns out, is still there!!??
(and the Global Warming Nuts would say, well we only said it was possibly by 2013 but for sure by 2030!! So you better do as we want or else!!)
After all, Proper Science always has a fudge factor in it’s predictions, right? 🙂
I know what you’re thinking: It’s shocking to all of us.
Especially shocking to guys like Al Gore who will have to put off their timeshare scheme developed for an island in the Arctic Circle called Umingmak Nuna. Umingmak Nuna is apparently the Inuit phrase for “land of the Muskox.”
I’ve never seen a real muskox before; only pictures.
Kind of looks like it’s half man, half bear, half pig.
Kind of a pig-bear-man.
There was a time I suppose when each of us were inclined to believe experts who told us that the rainforest would be gone by the year 2000, the extinction of whales would trigger an alien arms race to kill our planet in revenge and the artic sea ice would disappear by the summer of 2013.
And more than being shown to be fanciful predictions that have been born mostly out of fiction rather than science, such prophesies have served to reinforce skeptics’ claims that the whole “science” of global warming is based on faulty assumptions.
The absolute inability of warming science to have any predictive value ought to cause us to reexamine the whole debate.
Normal science works that way.
But instead of accepting the obvious answer– that there is something wrong with their models—warmists blame others for questioning the basic assumptions underlying their premise.
You have to be a moron “denialist” to disagree with them.
Any fair-minded, objective persons would now have to admit that at this point, most projections of doom and gloom predicated on the false science of global warming have not materialized despite a mighty attempt to tie EVERY WEATHER EVENT to global warming.
But of course global warmists are not fair-minded, objective persons.
Instead, they are high-priests of expertism, technocrats with the power to legislate the cosmos; nerds with power.
Nerds gone Sith. Where they are so narcissistic that, of course, any scientist with any credibility would agree with them and any who would dare challenge them has no credibility whatsever.
A poll done conducted by the Washington Post in 2012 on global warming found that only 26% of respondents trusted scientists “completely” while 35% trusted them “not at all.” For the skeptic crowd that’s an 11 point swing from 2007 when only 24% of respondents trusted scientists “not at all.”
That lack of trust sits right now like a mullet on the head of the scientific community.
Even Michael Bolton eventually bowed to the inevitable and got a haircut.
If scientists can’t get the haircut, they should at least be required to wear hairnets or big floppy hats.
True, that wouldn’t change anything, but at least we wouldn’t take them so seriously.
But I’m afraid they are stuck in their ways and even Clinton Kelly and Stacy London could not help these people out of their fashion rut.