Sea ice experts make astonishing admissions to polar bear specialists

Bob Greene:

We rely on models that can’t predict the future?

Originally posted on 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 1,102 more words

4 responses to “Sea ice experts make astonishing admissions to polar bear specialists

  1. “large ensembles from credible climate models are needed to understand Arctic sea ice trends in a warming world.”
    IOW, if you run the models a large number of times (until you hallucinate?) you will come to believe you have learned something real.
    “range at which you reach an ice free Arctic will likely happen over a 20 year period and that there was no exact date because there are a range of model predictions”
    IOW, we can’t see a statistical trend on a 10 year scale in the 45 years of data we’ve got now, so we are asking for more time – maybe we can see a 20-year pattern in 90 years of data. We’ll let you know in 2070.
    “there is model evidence that reduced sea ice cover is likely to…”
    IOW, we believe model outputs are REAL data, and measurements are simply numbers to be ‘adjusted’ until they appear to confirm our hypothesis.
    “(AO and NAO variability) can be very limited because they are influenced by certain conditions in certain places”
    IOW, we know everything in the climate is interrelated, but every time we examine these quantities we get results that don’t conform to our hypothesis.

  2. So, we have to wait 20 years to see if the currently failing models actually work?
    That’s right up there with “We have to enact the legislation before we read it.”

  3. I don’t believe there is any record of polar bear population decline in relation to arctic sea ice.
    The last known and probably only known cause of population decline was due to over-hunting.
    Polar Bears were put on a protected species list in approx. 1950 or so, and as far as I know, they have replenished their ranks ever since.

  4. I read the original and more from the links…. so I have a question, ‘What do they know?’ This is right up there with global warming causes more snow and colder temperatures. It’s counter intuitive see…. All I think is what a crock load of nonsense. A group of people trying to support a failing theory. Meanwhile the pet evil doer co2 continues to rise, temps have paused and sea ice may expand for +/- 20 years. That’s not what they were saying just a couple of years ago when sea ice was at its lowest level. Let’s not forget, we are suppose to already be in the midst of the tipping point. The Arctic is suppose to be ice free and wide spread sea level rises should have put major cities and some island nations under water. I’m not making this up, the CAWG published this.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s