Experts said Arctic sea ice would melt entirely by September 2016 - they were wrong

I'm sure what was most often said was "as early as" which means it's an extreme scenario; just like your ISP advertises "up to" 100 megs - depending on conditions you may not get half that and that doesn't make them liars.

You can't throw the baby out with the bath water because a handful of the most dire predictions were wrong.

a reply to: eNumbra

Oh darn. I WAS going to throw the baby out WITH the bathwater, BUT I can't now because the baby is now FROZEN over in a new chunk of SEA ICE.

Woah's me.

a reply to: TrueAmerican

I'm pretty sure that you won't be able to find a quote of any scientist or leading expert stating that the Arctic would be ice free by 2016.

A general expectation for a SEA ICE FREE SUMMER have been for around this time. A 21% increase over the horrific volume of 2012 isn't much of a reason to initiate a denial circle jerk.

a reply to: eNumbra

You can't throw the baby out with the bath water because a handful of the most dire predictions were wrong.

But our dummied down politicians plan on taxing us and they have exact figures and not guesstimates

depending on conditions you may not get half that and that doesn't make them liars.

and we know they are lyers (the politicians that is ). As for the other group we figure they must be (not as expert) as they claim to be . At this point in time its like flipping a coin .

a reply to: TrueAmerican

It's just like their claims over a decade ago that hurricanes would increase and get stronger, and instead we've had an 11-year lull in hurricanes that hit the US. None of the predictions these people make are ever accurate. It really looks a lot like a Jesus cult or end of the world cult where they're constantly revising the numbers for the end.

a reply to: Kali74

“My prediction remains that the Arctic ice may well disappear, that is, have an area of less than one million square kilometres for September of this year,” he said. “Even if the ice doesn’t completely disappear, it is very likely that this will be a record low year. I’m convinced it will be less than 3.4 million square kilometres [the current record low]. “I think there’s a reasonable chance it could get down to a million this year and if it doesn’t do it this year, it will do it next year. www.independent.co.uk... -a7065781.html

Doom porn sells.
Check out the hurricane coverage.

a reply to: Bluntone22

Major hurricane landfall drought continues: 4001 days and counting in updated Pielke graph

wattsupwiththat.com... The comment section is kind of funny and is more about what constitutes the USA . Some might like to include the US embassy in China in order to get a hit by a hurricane .

Wa reply to: the2ofusr1

Your link is broken however I fail to see how this quote validates any claim.

Its amazing that folks think 10's of thousands of scientists are in a massive conspiracy with global governments. The probability of a conspiracy of that magnitude is next to zero.

Climate change is real and its being altered by man. All you have to do is look at human enviornmental interaction. Look at habitat loss maps, de foresting maps, species extinctions (things like pollinators becoming endangered). When you mess with the system its going to have glitches. You cant say destroy microorganisms and not see collapses in the food chain.

Now the political solutions should be heavily scrutinized. For instance why would politicians taking massive donations from the oil industry actually be concerned with cleaning up polution and monitoring habitat? The real solution of coarse would be to allow the innovative artifacts to change how we produce and use goods and energy. With the massive lobby power stopping this by using political leverage and aggresive buyouts its nearly impossible to compete and get alternative products to the public.

So. I understand the skeptisim but honestly if you dont think the climate is alterred by humans at least look at the biological damage we have done and know once the foodchain collapses it will be a major problem for a large population on earth.

a reply to: TheBulk

Actually many scientists like the ones at NASA have been saying the frequency may decrease while increasing in the intensity.

This is science. Usually when you read the actual papers you will see words like: may, possibly, likely etc. Its predictive science that gets run through computer modelling its not a crystal ball. The media takes these papers anf makes them definitive. They do it with everyrhing.

You can read a report about medical diagnosis in the media and then look at the paper and they arent even close. The media will take a study done on 120 people and call it definitive science.

The conflict of interests have muddied the waters. Lots of science across the board skewing result for funding especially prevalent in the private medical industry.

I dont think climate change is the real heart of the issue. We need to study the habitat collapses and the effects on the food chain. How it can be restored and preserved. I do agree that the political solutions and explanations are to be heavily scrutinized. These are the same guys in bed with the big polluter lobbists. They could care less about changing how we consume or use energy.

This is even news? We really should be getting used to failed predictions by now.

And you have to love this: "We might be wrong today, but just you wait! We'll be right tomorrow!" No, you made a prediction and it failed. You were wrong.

Wrong today, wrong tomorrow. Just wrong. Go back and try to get it right.

TheRedneck

a reply to: Kali74

I'm pretty sure that you won't be able to find a quote of any scientist or leading expert stating that the Arctic would be ice free by 2016.

This quote comes from the leading expert on arctic ice . Professor Peter Wadhams ..sorry about the link not working .

“My prediction remains that the Arctic ice may well disappear, that is, have an area of less than one million square kilometres for September of this year,” he said. “Even if the ice doesn’t completely disappear, it is very likely that this will be a record low year. I’m convinced it will be less than 3.4 million square kilometres [the current record low]. “I think there’s a reasonable chance it could get down to a million this year and if it doesn’t do it this year, it will do it next year. www.independent.co.uk... -a7065781.html

www.independent.co.uk... -a7065781.html

a reply to: TrueAmerican

Yes I will be sarcastic,

The whole report is a lie, the artic is already melted, we are already swimming in water because the melting and looking turning into tap poles in other to become water friendly.

Yes I was been sarcastic.

a reply to: TrueAmericanThey can never again be able to referred to as 'experts'...

Keep in mind that this prediction was only by a handful of scientists and also...Here's a big one. This was only a prediction.

a reply to: the2ofusr1

I missed where he said the artic would melt.

First off this isnt a paper its a quote and prediction. Where he obviously says MAY well melt. His prediction also wasnt that far off. There was only 4.1 million sq kilo.

So this whole thread is ridiculous.

a reply to: luthier

No he said "“My prediction remains that the Arctic ice may well disappear, that is, have an area of less than one million square kilometres for September" But if one million is not much different then 4.1 then we have a good amount to go .How long if ....If's and could be's as well as maybe's and possibilities are words us un-experts can rightfully use but a expert that has only worked at that one job and claims to be a expert had better start being accurate because we all know that science works on facts and should be quite accurate about those facts or just keep their mouths shut because if its only about opinions then we all have one and some nay sayers about AGW have been more accurate then these "climate scientist" who use logical fallacies appealing to authority .

a reply to: the2ofusr1

I was refferring to directly above where he says less than 3.4.

Right. So your another guy who thinks over 10,000 scientists are in a giant conspiracy together.

Science works through problems and rearranges theories as more evidence is gathered.

Lets say clumate change isnt effected by man dont you think we should be protecting natural resources for great scarcities?

Also this is one guys prediction and a qoute. Why dont you read his paper and debunk his math or even try and understand what is actually being presented.

Yet there are reports of the Atlantic convayer slowing down leading to cooler summers in the northern hemisphere, which I presume means cooler winters as well?