Arctic Sea Ice Discussion 2016-2017: The Refreeze.

[The PIT]

Basically Knockers post sums up the problem with the science. Very little discussion and when a pro climate change publishes a paper it's pure fact and anyone who finds a fault or questions the paper gets hounded and abused. Not real science that. You only have to look at the climate gate emails too see how back handed they can be and could be very nasty even to their own pals if need be. It was also very interesting how they packed the peer review panels with their chums to make sure their papers got published and others blocked.

If you don't believe me find the emails yourself they are still out there. 

In the meantime climate will go regardless and do what it wants.

[BornFromTheVoid]

1 minute ago, The PIT said:

Basically Knockers post sums up the problem with the science. Very little discussion and when a pro climate change publishes a paper it's pure fact and anyone who finds a fault or questions the paper gets hounded and abused. Not real science that. You only have to look at the climate gate emails too see how back handed they can be and could be very nasty even to their own pals if need be. It was also very interesting how they packed the peer review panels with their chums to make sure their papers got published and others blocked.

If you don't believe me find the emails yourself they are still out there. 

In the meantime climate will go regardless and do what it wants.

There is little to no "sceptic" science on the subject, because there is no genuine scientific basis to it. If what these self proclaimed "sceptics" wrote had any merit, they'd get their stuff published. As it is, the best they can do is blog, tweet and get media articles where they hope the gullible will eat it up without question. The real issue here is most "sceptics" won't do actual scientific research, they can only muster misleading articles on subjects with which they have no expertise.
You don't seem to know much about how the scientific process works. Packing peer review panels with their chums? The majority of peer reviewed work is anonymous. You don't get to pick your reviewers in the major journal. The peer review process is a harsh one, where reviewers criticise and pick apart your work. It's the same in every scientific field and can be quiet tough, mentally, on the researcher. The fact that a few "sceptic" papers didn't get published and their work got criticised doesn't mean there's a giant conspiracy. Many established climate researchers have had papers rejected too. It's all part of the process.
All I saw with the hacked emails was climate change deniers desperately trying take phrases or words out of context to paint ludicrous conspiracy theories. Numerous independent organisations investigated the emails and found nothing wrong - no misconduct, malpractice or wrong doing at all. But that's never enough, is it!? 

The sun can be quiet, the aerosols can cool the planet, ENSO phases can shift, PDO/IPO/AMO can shift phases and yet the planet continues to warm regardless. Natural variability really doesn't seem to pack the punch it once did.

[Gray-Wolf]

I believe I have been posting in this area over many incarnations of the forum over many years. I've earned time in the 'sin bin' and have tried adjust my posting to keep inside the rules now in operation.

Over my time I have always tried to highlight not only the changes we have witnessed but also those both predicted by Science and from myself and my 'understanding' of that Science.

Over that time there have been plenty of folk who saw things differently and went to great lengths to prove that either the science 'could' be wrong or that the methodology used did not cut muster.

Such posters no longer post here anymore. Could they not stay within the forum guidelines and so became banned for life? Did they become tired of making no headway in their beliefs seeing only evidence and data line up along the 'traditional' understanding whilst ever more extreme events, both here and abroad, highlighted just what Science was warning us must come?

There was another group of posters who were nothing more than an annoyance. They traded in one liners ( often well debunked years before?) and personal Jibes. Such folk no longer mess up threads either.

The great sadness, to me, is that now there is a great calling for discussion and understanding of just what is occurring (as Pit's post highlights?) but we are barred from such.

Surely most of us see just how horrific things have now become in the Arctic and many more must have questions , as they play 'catch up' so I was wondering if Paul dare open up one 'Extreme Arctic' thread where all are welcome to both discuss concerns, post evidence, examine possible futures?

As it is here we are, the DMI 80N plot is exiting the year in a worse state thanwhein it came in ( remember the storm that brought melt temps to the pole on December 27th 2015?) 

 

with no sign of let up. In places the ice edge has rolled/melted back towards 85N with some buoy plots showing a 3c rise in surface temps as the storms push in ( mixing up warmer waters from below?) and waves are driving into , and under, the ice edge messing with the water column there too.

From a personal perspective , and I've been struggling with this all year long, I believe I am at the end of my usefulness ( as I saw it?).

I was always about raising attention in the hope that folk , better able than I , could help avert such an outcome yet here we are. No more 'warnings' only 'witnessing' .

What is the point in merely highlighting misery when you have no answers?

Much of what I warned about for years is here, undoubtedly sooner and driven by means I never properly weighted but our waiting is over

It is odd that I chose the Sig that I did? As pretty soon all of you will be filled with tales of what is occurring/going to occur and I will be focused away from it all. My family have suffered enough of my 'concerns' over the decades and for what gain?

Now those times are here I see no point in emphasising them so , like any denier worth their salt, I'm going to ignore it all and bury myself in my family life whilst they are still home and in need of me.

[The PIT]

On 25/12/2016 at 11:01, BornFromTheVoid said:

There is little to no "sceptic" science on the subject, because there is no genuine scientific basis to it. If what these self proclaimed "sceptics" wrote had any merit, they'd get their stuff published. As it is, the best they can do is blog, tweet and get media articles where they hope the gullible will eat it up without question. The real issue here is most "sceptics" won't do actual scientific research, they can only muster misleading articles on subjects with which they have no expertise.
You don't seem to know much about how the scientific process works. Packing peer review panels with their chums? The majority of peer reviewed work is anonymous. You don't get to pick your reviewers in the major journal. The peer review process is a harsh one, where reviewers criticise and pick apart your work. It's the same in every scientific field and can be quiet tough, mentally, on the researcher. The fact that a few "sceptic" papers didn't get published and their work got criticised doesn't mean there's a giant conspiracy. Many established climate researchers have had papers rejected too. It's all part of the process.
All I saw with the hacked emails was climate change deniers desperately trying take phrases or words out of context to paint ludicrous conspiracy theories. Numerous independent organisations investigated the emails and found nothing wrong - no misconduct, malpractice or wrong doing at all. But that's never enough, is it!? 

The sun can be quiet, the aerosols can cool the planet, ENSO phases can shift, PDO/IPO/AMO can shift phases and yet the planet continues to warm regardless. Natural variability really doesn't seem to pack the punch it once did.

I don't know how science works Pity I've got a degree plus so have two of my sisters so I know how science works.

Again you should read the emails from the horses mouth before dismissing it off hand.

People who say the science is settled are blind, Science is never settled it always evolving changing. If we understood how the climate worked and all the feed backs system we would be able to forecast months in advance maybe years but we don't.

In the meantime I want to enjoy the benefits brought by people researching climate change or as it will leads to better cleaner planet for us all.

As those who I'm a denier this a classic case of those who question being instantly labeled. I'm neither a denier or pro warmer. I don't post often in section because of how hostile the responses can be and I can't be bothered with it. More important things in life.

[BornFromTheVoid]

14 hours ago, The PIT said:

I don't know how science works Pity I've got a degree plus so have two of my sisters so I know how science works.

Again you should read the emails from the horses mouth before dismissing it off hand.

People who say the science is settled are blind, Science is never settled it always evolving changing. If we understood how the climate worked and all the feed backs system we would be able to forecast months in advance maybe years but we don't.

In the meantime I want to enjoy the benefits brought by people researching climate change or as it will leads to better cleaner planet for us all.

As those who I'm a denier this a classic case of those who question being instantly labeled. I'm neither a denier or pro warmer. I don't post often in section because of how hostile the responses can be and I can't be bothered with it. More important things in life.

Sorry PIT, but by claims like "packed the peer review panels with their chums to make sure their papers got published and others blocked" shows that you don't know how the process works as well as you think.
Of course nothing in science is ever completely settled, but certain aspects within climate science are as close to it as you will get. The greenhouse effect (poorly named) is real, atmospheric GhG levels have increased, the extra GhGs in the atmosphere are due or related to human activity, the extra GhGs are enhancing the greenhouse effect and warming the planet - causing at least the majority we've seen over the last 50 years
I never called you a denier in my comment. The only people I referred to as deniers were those who read the emails (most likely though, denier websites manipulating snippets of emails) and saw grand conspiracies among those involved despite numerous investigations that found no wrong doing..
Nobody here has been hostile toward you. If you consider having your views challenged or disputed as being hostile and you wish only to have your back patted because you don't agree with the science, well, there's plenty of denier websites that will do just that for you.

[Devonian]

1 hour ago, BornFromTheVoid said:

Sorry PIT, but by claims like "packed the peer review panels with their chums to make sure their papers got published and others blocked" shows that you don't know how the process works as well as you think.
Of course nothing in science is ever completely settled, but certain aspects within climate science are as close to it as you will get. The greenhouse effect (poorly named) is real, atmospheric GhG levels have increased, the extra GhGs in the atmosphere are due or related to human activity, the extra GhGs are enhancing the greenhouse effect and warming the planet - causing at least the majority we've seen over the last 50 years
I never called you a denier in my comment. The only people I referred to as deniers were those who read the emails (most likely though, denier websites manipulating snippets of emails) and saw grand conspiracies among those involved despite numerous investigations that found no wrong doing..
Nobody here has been hostile toward you. If you consider having your views challenged or disputed as being hostile and you wish only to have your back patted because you don't agree with the science, well, there's plenty of denier websites that will do just that for you.

Absolutely!

People like Pit expect to be able to go through other people's emails (as if any of us, including Pit, would be other than outraged about such theft!) call said people names, accuse them of dong wrong (oh the irony)  and when their scurrilous conduct provokes a reaction they have the brass neck to play the victim.

 

 

Edited December 28, 2016 by Devonian

[jvenge]

17 hours ago, The PIT said:

As those who I'm a denier this a classic case of those who question being instantly labeled. I'm neither a denier or pro warmer. I don't post often in section because of how hostile the responses can be and I can't be bothered with it. More important things in life.

Quite true. Grey Wolf's post above illustrates this quite well with his musings as to why people don't post. His reply is exactly why, as he already assumes a negative when asking the question.

2 hours ago, BornFromTheVoid said:

Of course nothing in science is ever completely settled, but certain aspects within climate science are as close to it as you will get. The greenhouse effect (poorly named) is real, atmospheric GhG levels have increased, the extra GhGs in the atmosphere are due or related to human activity, the extra GhGs are enhancing the greenhouse effect and warming the planet - causing at least the majority we've seen over the last 50 years
I never called you a denier in my comment. The only people I referred to as deniers were those who read the emails (most likely though, denier websites manipulating snippets of emails) and saw grand conspiracies among those involved despite numerous investigations that found no wrong doing..

The theory of relativity is still being challenged, more recently with a hypothesis that doesn't need the explanation of dark matter. If you really think climate science is even remotely close to being settled, it kind of shows the futility in engaging in conversation on the subject. However, other than your bolded comment, most people labeled deniers likely wouldn't disagree with what you said. Sure, there are some who deny the basics even, but equally you have people on the warming side also making outlandish claims.

 

Edited December 28, 2016 by jvenge

[BornFromTheVoid]

1 hour ago, jvenge said:

The theory of relativity is still being challenged, more recently with a hypothesis that doesn't need the explanation of dark matter. If you really think climate science is even remotely close to being settled, it kind of shows the futility in engaging in conversation on the subject. However, other than your bolded comment, most people labeled deniers likely wouldn't disagree with what you said. Sure, there are some who deny the basics even, but equally you have people on the warming side also making outlandish claims.

 

I responded to your post here to avoid the ongoing off-topic discussion. This thread is suppose to be about sea ice!

[knocker]

1 hour ago, jvenge said:

Quite true. Grey Wolf's post above illustrates this quite well with his musings as to why people don't post. His reply is exactly why, as he already assumes a negative when asking the question.

The theory of relativity is still being challenged, more recently with a hypothesis that doesn't need the explanation of dark matter. If you really think climate science is even remotely close to being settled, it kind of shows the futility in engaging in conversation on the subject. However, other than your bolded comment, most people labeled deniers likely wouldn't disagree with what you said. Sure, there are some who deny the basics even, but equally you have people on the warming side also making outlandish claims.

 

All I'm going to say on this subject is I recommend reading the book,  The War on Science: Who's waging it, why it matters, what we can do about it by Shawn Otto Assuming you  have not already read ii that is. I say this because I'm fed up with people making general comments such as your, " If you really think climate science is even remotely close to being settled, it kind of shows the futility in engaging in conversation on the subject" without the slightest attempt at any scientific justification.

[jvenge]

2 hours ago, knocker said:

All I'm going to say on this subject is I recommend reading the book,  The War on Science: Who's waging it, why it matters, what we can do about it by Shawn Otto Assuming you  have not already read ii that is. I say this because I'm fed up with people making general comments such as your, " If you really think climate science is even remotely close to being settled, it kind of shows the futility in engaging in conversation on the subject" without the slightest attempt at any scientific justification.

It's subjective. You want me to show the scientific justification for saying something is not settled, but there isn't a scientific justification for saying something is settled. However, you get a little tetchy, which goes back to the point as to why people don't bother posting. It's settled in your view, so what on earth would be the point in entering into conversation on the subject? I don't learn my own lesson though, hence the below. Take comfort, I will get bored after a few replies, question my sanity for doing it yet again, but then I will be back again in a few weeks, having forgotten my previous correspondence and experience.

The only time science will be settled on climate change is when empirical evidence (observation, the only way you can test a hypothesis) shows it to be. That said, point me to something from 5 years or 10 years ago that predicted the present climate in its entirety. Not close to, as that wouldn't be settled. Feel free to post in the other thread though, as I wouldn't want to take this off topic, although I note none of people patting each other on the back about the ignorance of climate science deniers weren't called out on that.

Onto sea ice. I admit there were two wobbles the past few months that raised my eyebrows a bit, but December will likely finish on the second largest extent increase, maybe the first even. Now, I will then add the caveat that the only reason it had the opportunity to have the second or largest increase is because it performed so dismally in autumn months.

Next is opinion. Those who are trying to predict what shape the sea ice will be in summer, based on current conditions, are on a fool's errand. 

Edited December 28, 2016 by jvenge

[Gray-Wolf]

The " ooh my god look how much ice we just grew" only works when you were already where you should be for the time of year and not trailing the next lowest ( 2006) by hundreds of thousands of sq km at the start of the month?

It is like saying whoopee we are average!!!!

As for commenting on ice distribution at summers end? What about Hudson Bay? Would it be a 'fools errand' to guess where that would end up by late Aug?

The Concern for the pack is that large swathes of ice are of a thickness that would not be odd in Hudson and , so far this winter, our side of the Basin has seen consistent temps higher than over Hudson of late so what would that suggest about the ice?

This " You cannot....." game only worked when you knew it would take a fantastic collaboration of melt and export to see the pack drop below the million mark at melt seasons end.

What has become clearer is that even when the 3 highest melt months are cold and cloudy we fall to second lowest in our record......and then see ice formation as disrupted as we have so far seen this season ( now the days are getting longer in the N.H.) as we claw back from that low? 

We continue to shed good ice through both Fram ( which has already taken the 'good ice' we saw lined up over Fram as melt seasons end) and the still open Nares straight whist the ice edge see saws on our side of the basin.

What you can say is that over the recent past the DMI 80N record shows day zero to day 100 as being highly disturbed with the first 100 days of 2016 never dipping below the average temp for day 100? This year we are exiting at a higher temp than the first 100 days so will we see as the low point over the first 100 days this time?

Eyeballing the plot seems to show 7c higher temps for the first 100 days of 2016. How much energy does it take to raise the temp of the ice, 80N  , by 7 degrees ? If that energy was not needed , at the start of this year, to raise the temp of the basin at 80N where was it spent?

This start of winter has been very different to what we saw at the end of 2015 so what will that bring to the pack as we enter 2017.

I seem to remember that some folk were happy to see how cloudy/cool the June forecasts were in 2016. By the time we were entering August we saw no more celebrating of 'ice retentive' weathers' as ,by then, we were used to seeing the ice not being retained, under conditions that once provided that service, and were even looking like we could fall to a record low......

So, we entered refreeze with the worst pack we have yet seen and by November had the lowest volume ever recorded for the month . At the same time we were seeing temps over 20c above those that should exist in a 24hr dark Arctic?

So I would suggest that if we do see as poor a melt season as we did last year we will still fall lower than 2016 due to a more shattered , warmer, thinner ice pack.

If we do see a return of the 07' synoptic( or a 10yr repeat of the 10 to 20 year cycle) then what would folk expect by mid August?

EDIT: Ateam over on the ASIF kindly put together this GIF of the ice edge around Svalbard at min and on Dec 23rd

EDIT: A look at the past two months of extremes across the basin;

https://wwa.climatecentral.org/analyses/north-pole-nov-dec-2016/

Edited December 29, 2016 by Gray-Wolf

[Geordiesnow]

8 hours ago, Gray-Wolf said:

to remember that some folk were happy to see how cloudy/cool the June forecasts were in 2016. By the time we were entering August we saw no more celebrating of 'ice retentive' weathers' as ,by then, we were used to seeing the ice not being retained, under conditions that once provided that service, and were even looking like we could fall to a record low......

So, we entered refreeze with the worst pack we have yet seen and by November had the lowest volume ever recorded for the month . At the same time we were seeing temps over 20c above those that should exist in a 24hr dark Arctic?

So I would suggest that if we do see as poor a melt season as we did last year we will still fall lower than 2016 due to a more shattered , warmer, thinner ice pack.

If we do see a return of the 07' synoptic( or a 10yr repeat of the 10 to 20 year cycle) then what would folk expect by mid August?

 

The cool June probably saved the ice from going at record low levels because May was very warm across the Arctic with high pressure in charge and eventually we were seeing quite warm ridges entering the basin around mid May and we saw what that done to the ice in Beaufort so the melt season got off to a very poor start. I don't think August was a particularly cold month though(i might be wrong on that though) as we saw quite extreme conditions in terms of one of the strongest dipoles I have ever seen at one point so I do feel its wrong to suggest it was a fully cold summer last summer but there was some alarming signs during last years melt season for sure. 

One of those is just how far the ice got near the pole from the Pacific side towards the end of the melt season, how fragmented the pack was during the melt season and the record low extent during May. Will be interesting just where extent will be at the start of this melt season and what impacts we will see during the summer, can't wait in all fairness.

[stewfox]

On 24/12/2016 at 20:21, Snow phall said:

What do people make of this article?

http://www.rationaloptimist.com/blog/arctic-sea-ice/

I don't know who is is though.

Good read and as it says we don't know how summer sea ice behaved pre satalite era. I guess most folks would agree

""Arctic ice is the most visible, but least harmful, effect of global warming"

late development of spring ice could have impact on polar bears etc but tourism far more so. Although increased tourism in the high Artic if managed correctly could bring benefits

However a bit more open water in August /September isnt going to impact on a plant on the shore line 600 miles away.

Meanwhile IJIS is playing catch up past 12m on extent 

https://ads.nipr.ac.jp/vishop/#/extent

 

Edited December 30, 2016 by stewfox

[Gray-Wolf]

Hi G.S.!

I'm not excited about the upcoming melt season but I will be transfixed once it begins, I'm sure it's that human 'rubber necking' trait?

I do not know how low solar impacts blocking in the Atlantic over winter but it does seem to be 'a thing'? So does low solar promote more H.P. over the basin over summer? I have no answer but it is a thought I'm currently rumbling around with?

I spent a number of years worrying about the return of the perfect melt storm synoptic in 2017. It would have been the earliest it could have returned but then the two prior to 07' respected that 10 year gap? As time moved on we saw an increase in low pressure entering the basin over the high summer so my concerns faded back a bit but now I'm wondering if that was premature and that low solar might promote H.P. setting up over the basin for extended periods (in the same way we see them over the Atlantic basin over winter  i.e. the phenomena shifts north?)?

All of this is fast becoming immaterial if all we are doing is merely looking for the first 'Blue Ocean ' event. As we have seen very low mins can now come from a very unpromising summer of cloudiness and cool temps over solar max so a winter giving even thiner ice and warmer core temps in the ice would suggest an even lower drop even under such 'average' summer forcings..

If we are concerned about the climate disruption that an open ocean, ice free over a long period in a melt season, soaking up solar that used to be harmlessly bounced back into space then the return of the 'perfect melt storm synoptic' could spell trouble for us all.

As for stew's " cannot affect a plant 600 miles away' he is forgetting that the removal of ice directly impacts temps up to 1,500km away? This figure was established over a decade ago so its odd he is unaware of it as it would have helped properly colour the blog article he linked to.? As it is I do not think there will be a lot of scientists now who , after this past Autumn/early winter , will dismiss the impacts that low ice is having above the Arctic each year now and how those impacts filter down through the lower latitudes. I am just very glad that so far this winter the low solar has promoted a high pressure 'shield' over us and spared us from the storms that went on to blight southern Spain , East Greenland/Iceland/.Svalbard!

One thing has altered over the past 12 months though. I find I am no longer warning of a future that may arise but am commenting on those impacts already manifesting in the world. Be it QBO weirdness or Polar vortex misbehaviour, be it global temps or the rise in CO2 this year ( 3.71ppm according to NOAA...... highest on their record even though mankind supposedly throttled back their emmisions?) .

To many NIMBY's still though. until they flood/bake/see a tornado over their home they will not believe anything awry is going on and will resort to the " it's all happened before" lie?

[Gray-Wolf]

Well that's us falling away from the pack on volume then? I suppose with so much open water through November and our 'good ice' continuing to float out through Fram we could expect nothing more?

So , this Low Solar Blocking we see over winter on our side of the pond? What becomes of it come spring/summer? Does it fade away or does it just drift north like the polar Jet? It occurs to me that is we had the Beaufort High in place and then saw Greenland/Kara/Barentsz prone to H.P. forming over them we could see issues?

[Gray-Wolf]

There is some debate around the validity of the December PIOMAS update as the numbers are incredibly low ( 9.5), if they confirm this frightening low then we have real problems in 2017 from the get go.

The flow of storms into the basin , since April 2015, has set up a battle zone in Barentsz/Kara with warm water/ice fighting it out over territory. whilst this is ongoing no thickening is occurring and losses, via Fram are continuing. Will this year see the Basin acting more like Hudson Bay and what will that mean for August onward in the N. Hemisphere

[knocker]

Global sea ice records broken (again)

Quote

Sabbatical or not, records must be reported (like I did last year, here and here, albeit a month later).

According to NSIDC data, the Global sea ice area record for lowest minimum has just been broken, as shown on this Wipneus graph (world famous now because of what happened after September last year; see the dark red line on the right side of the graph which should be fairly easily to spot):

http://neven1.typepad.com/blog/2017/01/global-sea-ice-records-broken-again.html

[because]

20 hours ago, knocker said:

Global sea ice records broken (again)

http://neven1.typepad.com/blog/2017/01/global-sea-ice-records-broken-again.html

A little ironic that a record that Cryosphere Today gave us for so long should become so important as soon as they fail us . 3 Cheers for Wipneus and his world-wide fame

[because]

It looks a little dead here considering .. the Arctic has never seen a week like the coming one . Looking at the ice N.of Greenland .. it is a shattered mess and it is among the thickest and oldest in the ocean . Current conditions there would look bad in July . Now comes a storm I have not seen the like of ... The three months since mid October have certainly sounded the death knell of the Arctic as we knew it . Interesting rule so far .. Stormy Arctic .. Sunny Ireland

 

[The PIT]

Okay whats actually happening with the sea ice. If it was doing badly I would expect a lot more posts. This laptop hasn't the links but it looked crap earlier.

[Snow phall]

Can anyone tell me why my post and link has been removed from this thread?That's twice now.

It has useful info about past ice levels.

http://www.lowerwolfjaw.com/agw/quotes.htm

Edited January 15, 2017 by Snow phall

[BornFromTheVoid]

10 hours ago, Snow phall said:

Can anyone tell me why my post and link has been removed from this thread?That's twice now.

It has useful info about past ice levels.

http://www.lowerwolfjaw.com/agw/quotes.htm

What you've been posting are links to climate denier sites. It's a poor attempt to disprove climate science by using a collections of media quotes out of context, the vast majority of which come from non experts.Even with than, most of the quotes relatively accurate statements about what was happening at the time or musings about the climate, not failed predictions at all.

For example, the first quote is about warming and a lack of ice observed in New York in the late 19th century. It's an observation, not a failed prediction

The second one is simply asking the question of whether or not the places experiencing warmth now may ultimately turn colder. Once more, not a prediction (though without our influence, a new glacial period would have arrived eventually).

Even the quotes regarding the Arctic are observations. It did warm up earlier in the 20th century and set some local records. But those records have since been completely obliterated, time and time again, in the last decade or 2.

I could do the same with the rest of the quotes but it's not worth the effort. The whole thing is simply a poor attempt to mislead.

[Snow phall]

1 hour ago, BornFromTheVoid said:

What you've been posting are links to climate denier sites. It's a poor attempt to disprove climate science by using a collections of media quotes out of context, the vast majority of which come from non experts.Even with than, most of the quotes relatively accurate statements about what was happening at the time or musings about the climate, not failed predictions at all.

For example, the first quote is about warming and a lack of ice observed in New York in the late 19th century. It's an observation, not a failed prediction

The second one is simply asking the question of whether or not the places experiencing warmth now may ultimately turn colder. Once more, not a prediction (though without our influence, a new glacial period would have arrived eventually).

Even the quotes regarding the Arctic are observations. It did warm up earlier in the 20th century and set some local records. But those records have since been completely obliterated, time and time again, in the last decade or 2.

I could do the same with the rest of the quotes but it's not worth the effort. The whole thing is simply a poor attempt to mislead.

Well thanks for letting me know,instead of someone just deleting them without an explanation.

After reading your reply,i checked a couple of the quotes and indeed whoever made the list is up to some shenanigans,but i did find the source of this quote and it is interesting to read.

NOVEMBER, 1922. MONTHLY WEATHER REVIEW. page 589
¯
THE CHANGING ARCTIC.
By GEORGE NICOLAS, IFFT.
[Under data of October 10, 1922, the American consul at Bergen, Norway, submitted the following report to the State Department, Washington, D.C ]

The Arctic seems to be warming up. Reports from fishermen, seal hunters, and explorers who sail the seas about Spitzbergen and the eastern Arctic, all point to a radical change in climatic conditions, and hitherto unheard-of high temperatures in that part of the earth’s
surface.

In August, 1922, the Norwegian Departnient of Commerce sent an expedition to Spitzbergen and Bear Island under the leadership of Dr. Adolf Hoel, lecturer on geology at the University of Christiania. Its purpose was to survey and chart the lands adjacent to the Norwegian mines on those islands, take soundings of the adjacent waters, and make other oceanographic investigations.
Dr. Hoel, who has just returned, reports the location of hitherto unknown coal deposits on the eastern shores of Advent Bay — deposits of vast extent and superior quality. This is regarded as of first importance, as so far most of the coal mined by the Norwegian companies on those islands has not been of the best quality.

The oceanographic observations have, however, been even more interesting. Ice conditions were exceptional. In fact, so little ice has never before been noted. The expedition all but established a record, sailing as far north 80°29′ in ice-free water. This is the farthest
north ever reached with modern oceanographic apparatus.
The character of the waters of the great polar basin has heretofore been practically unknown. Dr. Hoel reports that he made a section of the Gulf Stream at 81° north latitude and took soundings to a depth of 3,100 meters. These show the Gulf Stream very warm, and it
could be traced as a surface current till beyond the 81st parallel. The warmth of the waters makes it probable that the favorable ice conditions will continue for some time.

Later a section was taken of the Gulf Stream off Bear Island and off the Isfjord, as well as a section of the cold current that comes down along the west coast of Spitzbergen off the south cape.
In connection with Dr Hoel’s report, it is of interest to note the unusually warm summer in Arctic Norway and the observations of Capt. Martin Ingebrigtsen, who has sailed the eastern Arctic for 54 years past. He says that he first noted wanner conditions in 1918, that since
that time it has steadily gotten warmer, and that to-day the Arctic of that region is not recognizable as the same region of 1865 to 1917.

Many old landmarks are so changed as to be unrecognizable. Where formerly great masses of ice were found there are now often moraines, accumulations of earth and stones. At many points where
glaciers formerly extended far into the sea they have entirely disappeared.

The change in temperature, says Captain Ingebrigtsen, has also brought about great change in the flora and fauna of the Arctic. This summer he sought for white fish in Spitzbergen waters. Formerly great shoals of them were found there. This year he saw none , although he visited all the old fishing grounds.

There were few seal in Spitzbergen water this year, the catch being far under the average. This, however, did not surprise the captain. He pointed out that formerly the waters aout Spitzbergen held an even summer temperature of about 3° Celsius; this year recorded temperatures up to 15°, and last winter the ocean did not freeze over even on the north coast of Spitzbergen.

[BornFromTheVoid]

Note there how they take about getting to 80°29′ in summer as if it shows the terrible state of the ice. You'll often find those that disagree with the science of climate change taking that and similar kinds of quotes and using them to claim what's happening in the Arctic currently is nothing new. But that makes very little sense when you consider that even now, in the middle of winter, there are ice free seas beyond 82°N, and just before xmas we were ice free north of 83°

[Gray-Wolf]

Hi Be Cause!

We used to be a far more exciting area but the rule changes put paid to any such just as conditions/events/Science made the old style 'denial' impossible? After this melt season ,and its potential impacts, even the model thread will be full of 'impacts of AGW' discussion ( I'm surprised it isn't now after the unprecedented QBO behaviours this past year?).

 As such we are not really free to 'discuss', merely post new science. As things stand this is the only thread that does see exchanges/conversations due to the subject nature and the upcoming storms will provide us with some interesting talking points prior to melt season.

Looking further ahead will we see an SSW at months end? Will this see the vortex re-form or would it prove to be an incredibly early 'final warming' and so open the basin to further storms as spring returns to the basin?

For the time being we'd better focus on the upcoming storm! Some of the Null school forecasts for swell/wave heights do not leave me with much hope for the pack over our side of the basin? Some 5m plus waves would drive mixing tens of metres down in the water column and there is plenty of warm water ( relatively) there to be mixed up to the surface and bring us a melting event on top of all the mechanical weathering such a vicious storm must drive.

By Wednesday we will have an idea of the mess storm number 1 has wrought ( I'd suggest keeping an eye on the 're-freeze' thread on Neven's Arctic Sea Ice Forum as some very capable posters will be tracking impacts and ,hopefully, providing images to back up our rhetoric about damage?) prior to the second , lesser ,storms arrival.

I do not know how common such strong events are at this time of the year but I have never seen such over my ice watching years .

BFTV might be more aware of such?

Edited January 15, 2017 by Gray-Wolf