For more information on the current body of research on polar climate changes, here is a good article from the CO2 Science Magazine:

http://www.co2science.org/subject/a/summaries/arctictemptrends.php

Follow its links for the abstracts and background research projects that the article discusses.

I agree with the observation but disagree with the conclusion. The climate and oceanographic departments of Carleton University, University of Winnipeg, University of Missouri Columbia, University of Delaware, Virginia State, Oregon State, Center For Climate/Ocean Resources Study, University of Alabama, University of Maine, and Tech Central Station, are all involved in close study of the ground based SAT, core, and satellite based historic and current record of Arctic sea ice. Their collective research has found “strong intrinsic variability, dominated by multi-decadal fluctuations with a timescale of 60-80 years” with sharp, stepped, temperature rises of up to 5 C which bear the remarkable signature of past Pacific Decadal Oscillations and “Great Pacific Climate Shifts.”

If you listen to the podcast again, Maslowski is not making reference to any new models. He is clearly using the existing GCM global warming models as being the baseline for his conclusions. It is clearly stated that global warming is accelerating the melt faster than previously realized. That assertion is completely unsupported by any analysis of the historic polar climate records and is completely unsupported in current CGMs. I agree with the observation being made of retreating ice volume but I strongly disagree with Maslowski’s conclusion when there is a very strong body of new research that points to a more plausible and verifiable natural explanation.

Maslowski is really saying “our global warming models didn’t predict this sudden regional change so global warming must be accelerating far worse than we thought!” He’s basing his conclusion on a gross failure of the models rather than on investigating why the models are failing and finding the unexpected confounding variable that is driving the models to failure. Science doesn’t get any more bogus than with such unscientific methodologies of proving a hypothesis through an observed failure of the hypothesis.

What I, as a scientist, find incredible is how other scientists have become so invested in global warming that they are unwilling to look at new found climate variabilities and make an effort to understand what’s driving them. They have a blind foregone conclusion that all climate change is driven by global warming. That’s what sells their science and sadly they’re sticking to it in ignorance of new information. Malowski’s observations are significant. His statements are unsupported by evidence.

I think a key point here is that changes are occurring much faster than scientists predicted. For example, see the interview I did with Walt Meier of the NSIDC last fall:

“Ice-free Arctic: Not whether, but when”
http://earthsky.org/radioshows/52871/ice-free-arctic-not-whether-but-when

He says the early climate models predicted an ice-free summertime Arctic by the end of this century. But those models do not match the pace of climate change that scientists have observed. As a result, the new models predict an ice-free Arctic in 20-30 years.

Meier also notes that it is no longer laughable to say we could have an ice-free (summertime) Arctic in 5 years. It’s within the realm of possibility, even if there’s not a large chance it will happen — because of the trends scientists have documented.

So Maslowski’s statements are significant, although I’d focus on the 20-30 year range as the one supported by the most science — and scientists. Still, 20-30 years is not that far in the future.

1) Maslowski’s predictions are considered to be worst case by many of his peers. As such, his commentary should be viewed as noteworthy but not necessarily predictive.

2) As a p garcia commented, the NSIDC did announce publically that their ice extent measurements were off, indicating approximately 500,000 sq. km. less ice for the past several months due to sensor drift, ultimately sensor failure, and data drop-outs. That the NSIDC made this announcement openly and immediately on discovery, in my opinion, testifies favorably to their integrity. Real-time data products such as those offered by the NSIDC are, well, real time and subject to sensor and data errors. They require correlation and verification with other references – a time consuming process that can take up to a year. Anyone who makes predictions based on any short term data does so at their own professional risk. Maslowski doesn’t comment on his source data or comparison methods so it is hard to know if NSIDC data errors have any bearing on his conclusions.

3) Over the past 250 years of ground based measurements, there have been four distinct periods where the ice extents rapidly receded then subsequently recovered. These lower ice extent periods last one or more decades and are attributed to natural climate fluctuations going back at least several centuries. In the recent past, the western Arctic Ocean was much warmer than it is today (3-7 deg warmer than today).

4) Climatologists are citing relatively recent discovery of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation and accompanying wind pattern changes as being responsible for the lower ice extent being observed. Current Arctic climate observations do not support amplified warming in Polar Regions predicted by GCMs [General Circulation Models]. Specifically, wind patterns have been blowing normal seasonally broken up ice packs out of the basin to warmer open waters, resulting in lower ice volume measurements. The effects of this ice flow pattern are mentioned in the podcast. However, the cyclical history of the pattern seems to have been omitted by Maslowski.

So, the bottom line is while some like Maslowski suggest that we crossed the tipping point (or are on the verge), there is no body of evidence to substantiate the claim or even give it reasonable plausibility.