Sea ice experts make astonishing admissions to polar bear specialists

Posted: July 29, 2014 by tallbloke in solar system dynamics

.

Mark Serreze goes all “Ummm and Errr” about the timing of the ‘Arctic death spiral’.

polarbearscience

Climate scientists specializing in future sea ice predictions made some remarkable statements to polar bear scientists at their last meeting – admissions that may really surprise you.

USFWS_PolarBearNews2013_pg5 labeled

Back on June 26 (reported here), the IUCN Polar Bear Specialist Group (PBSG) posted a summary of its last meeting. So, I was very surprised to find (while there looking for something else), that on 18 July 2014 they had added minutes from the meeting to that summary.

These minutes are a bonanza because among the juicy nuggets of information is a summary of what the three invited climate scientists from Colorado (Jennifer Kay, Mark Serreze, and Marika Holland) had to say and what questions were asked. While real transparency would have involved posting copies of the sea ice presentations and transcripts of the question and answer sessions, this is certainly better than nothing.

I’ve pulled some quotes from the minutes…

View original post 1,102 more words

Comments
  1. A C Osborn says:

    It is Science Jim, but not as we know it.
    Models and mot Models, do these guys ever do any real Science with actual real world measurements?
    They all seem to live in a Virtual World.

  2. Joe Public says:

    A candidate for oxymoron of the year: “….. there is model evidence that ……….”

  3. Steve C says:

    Joe, “Model evidence” is like “model railways”.
    If you look at it just right, it looks like evidence (or a train, as the case may be).

    The most telling point was right at the end of the page – that polar bears have survived a lot “worse” without getting anywhere close to extinction. Funny how people fret so much about hulking great brutes which would eat them whole as a light lunch, and misperceive them as fragile little critters struggling to survive in a niche which is vanishing because of human evil. How far out of kilter does your perception have to get before you Darwin yourself out of the unforgiving real world, I wonder? 😐

  4. A sea-ice-expert and a polar-bear-specialist walk into a bar. All other customers leave. Bar owner is really pissed.

  5. Steve C says: July 29, 2014 at 11:06 pm

    Joe, “Model evidence” is like “model railways”.
    If you look at it just right, it looks like evidence (or a train, as the case may be).

    How far out of kilter does your perception have to get before you Darwin yourself out of the unforgiving real world, I wonder? 😐

    Kilter, interesting word, “proper or usual state or condition”, i.e. state of flux. Is no apparent flux then “far out of kilter”?

  6. ren says:

    Autumn in Western Europe.
    http://earth.nullschool.net/#2014/08/03/0600Z/wind/isobaric/700hPa/overlay=temp/orthographic=26.89,48.51,838
    Ozone accurately shows the air flow. The stratosphere 15 km.

  7. ren says:

    Visible drop in temperature in the zone of the ozone above the equator.

  8. ren says:

    Slowed decline of ice in the Arctic. High concentrations of ice.
    http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/arctic.sea.ice.interactive.html

  9. Steve C says:

    @Will – Flux? How is kilter fluxy? Something being “in good kilter” (condition, order) just means it’s well set up for doing whatever it’s doing. I was idly musing on how far “out of kilter” (condition, order) you need your perception of reality to be before it kills you (e.g. in an event resulting from some misinterpretation of ursine predation behaviour).

    If you’re reading me as suggesting that these polar bear scientists’ perception was somehow out of kilter, far from it and I apologise for putting it badly. It was the routine misuse of the polar bear as poster boy for endangeredness, by greens trying to play on your heartstrings, which prompted the thought.

  10. DD More says:

    “J. Kay concluded…that 1) summary observed trends in 1979-2013 sea ice cannot be explained by natural variability; 2) Arctic sea ice extent could increase or decrease over the next decade and that all future conditions are highly dependent on model physics, and 3) large ensembles from credible climate models are needed to understand Arctic sea ice trends in a warming world.” Pg. 10

    [Got it: the models can’t predict how variable the ice may be over the next 20 years but the experts know for sure that the recent changes are not the result of natural variation]

    Okay, so 1) adding all the trends, they could only find man made losses. 2) They report Arctic sea ice is controlled by their model’s physics??? 3) You can only figure it out by running and re-running our models, but only if there credible.

  11. michael hart says:

    “Whacky weather”
    Chuckle.