WUWT Arctic Sea Ice News #8

By Steven Goddard

The quest for the Holy Grail.

I have been looking for a reliable early predictor of September area/extent based on June ice data, and have found it – almost. Previously I established that current extent is a useless predictor, prior to August. The reasons for this are :

  • Extent tells you nothing about thickness
  • Many areas currently covered with ice, will normally have almost none in September (Hudson Bay, Barents Sea, etc.)

I eliminated the second issue by reducing the region of interest to the area shown in white below. That area corresponds approximately to the maximum extent of September ice in the 30 year NSIDC record.

Then I tried three different metrics to compare June 6 ice parameters vs. September extent and area, for the decade 2000-2009.

The first parameter was June 6 ice area. As expected, this correlated very poorly with September extent and area. The rsq value of June 6 ice area rankings vs September extent rankings is 0.02. The rsq value of June 6 ice area rankings vs September area rankings is 0.07.

The next parameter for comparison was June 6 ice volume (calculated from PIPS) vs September extent. This correlated much better. The rsq value of June 6 ice volume rankings vs September extent rankings is 0.22. The rsq value of June 6 ice volume rankings vs September area rankings is 0.37.

The final parameter for comparison was June 6 average ice thickness (calculated from PIPS) vs September extent. This correlated the best. The rsq value of June 6 average ice thickness rankings vs September extent rankings is 0.28. The rsq value of June 6 average ice thickness rankings vs September area rankings is an excellent 0.65.

So it appears that we have found a reliable predictor of September extent based on June ice thickness, which makes sense from a physical point of view. But it isn’t perfect! The graph and table below show the problem.

Average thickness on June 6, 2010 is 2.55 metres. The table below shows the June 6 rankings for the last 11 years. 2010 is in 7th place, behind 2006 and ahead of 2007, 2003, 2009 and 2008. Average thickness is more than half a metre thicker than 2008.

Date            Average Thickness
6/6/2004        2.95
6/6/2005        2.87
6/6/2001        2.86
6/6/2000        2.84
6/6/2002        2.76
6/6/2006        2.68
6/6/2010        2.55
6/6/2007        2.54
6/6/2003        2.5
6/6/2009        2.17
6/6/2008        1.96

Everything in that table makes sense, except for 2007.  Ice thickness in the central Arctic on June 6, 2007 was nearly identical to 2010 and the top year – 2003.

Conclusion : Based on current ice thickness, we should expect September extent/area to come in near the top of the JAXA rankings (near 2003 and 2006.) However, unusual weather conditions like those from the summer of 2007 could dramatically change this. There is no guarantee, because weather is very variable.

No doubt some people are wondering how this can be true, given that extent is currently lowest in the record. The reason (again) is that June extent has almost no  correlation with September extent.  Imagine an ice cube floating in water. It occupies a much smaller area of water than a ground up ice cube. But which one melts faster? The ground up ice cube will of course melt faster. Having a wide extent in June is not necessarily a good thing, unless the ice is also thick.

Sea surface temperatures continue to run cold in the Northern Pacific. They also are cooling down some in Atlantic.

http://weather.unisys.com/surface/sst_anom.html

Arctic temperatures have been running cold for the last week or so.

From: http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/map/images/fnl/sfctmpmer_01a.fnl.anim.html

http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/meant80n.uk.php

There is no indication of melt in the ice off Barrow, with ongoing cold temperatures and the deepest snow of the winter.

http://seaice.alaska.edu/gi/observatories/barrow_sealevel/brw2010/BRW_MBS10_overview_complete.png

Ice continues to look very concentrated in the Arctic Basin, as seen in this enhanced satellite photo.

http://ice-map.appspot.com/?map=Arc&sat=ter&lvl=7&lat=67.940426&lon=-168.991006&yir=2010&day=149

——————————————–

The disparity between ice indices continues to widen.DMI has 2010 ahead of 2007 and 2008. Other indices have 2010 lower. Given the analysis above, these numbers are relativelymeaningless this early in the summer.

The modified NSIDC graph below shows a comparison of 2010 ice extent vs. 2007. Areas in green have more ice than 2007. Areas in red have less ice.

The modified NSIDC map below shows ice loss since April 5, in red.

The modified NSIDC map shows changes in Arctic ice over the last week, using the same colour scheme.

The modified NSIDC image below shows the current anomaly. Areas in red have less ice than the 30 year mean, and areas in green have more ice.

About these ads

273 thoughts on “WUWT Arctic Sea Ice News #8

  1. Those of us betting on September recovery need to hold our nerve, but I think we’ll still win.

  2. Excellent. If you want to play with multiple regressions, you might try the average Arctic temp as a second variable.

  3. If you qualify r^2=0.65 as being excellent (for climatological studies) I might just accept it.

    Back in my experimentalist days, anything less than 0.90 was more or less considered random chance. Granted that compared to the GCM, 0.65 is impressive.

  4. Steve, just want to congradulate you on your continuing quest for the scientific answer. I am really enjoying watching your (and thanx to you mine) journey to better knowledge of this part of the system.

    Thanx for sharing!

  5. “Everything in that table makes sense, except for 2007. Ice thickness in the central Arctic on June 6, 2007 was nearly identical to 2010 and the top year – 2003.”

    Exactly. Ice had already started recovering before the wind anomaly in 2007 pushed so much old ice out into the Atlantic. That event was very fortunate for the AGW crowd as it gave them a data point that could be spun that actually had nothing at all to do with temperatures. They could point and say “the Arctic is MELTING” when it wasn’t “melt” at all; at least not melting in the Arctic.

  6. I’m curious why you convert ice extent, volume, and thickness measures into ranks, before taking correlations. I would think the raw metrics could give a clearer view of their possibly nonlinear relationships.

  7. I see more variations from supposedly reputable sources on both thickness and extent of Arctic sea ice than I can track. The U.S. Navy seems to be saying it’s now thicker than ever while Goddard’s chart indicates it is thinner than in 2004. Al Gore (whom I exclude from the aforementioned “credible” sources) says the ice is almost all gone and British “pretend explorers” almost froze to death two years running while trying to climb over great mounds of the stuff between themselves and the North Pole while reporting that Gore was right.

    The whole subject has degenerated into a Tower of Babel.

  8. A bold and reasoned prediction, Sir! If only to stem an unwelcome return of 2007 portentous wailings, I truly hope you hit the target.

  9. Steven,
    As the german soldier character portrayed by Artie Johnson on Laugh In used to say “Verrrryyy Interesssting!”

    My recollection is that persistent currents and/or winds drove large masses of old, thick ice out of the arctic polar region in 2007. What was the underlying root cause of those less common persistent currents/winds? Can they be predicted and subsequent minimum ice extents anticipated as well? Is it possible that a similar purge of arctic polar ice into the north Atlantic shipping lanes in 1912 contributed to the sinking of the Titanic?

    Discussion of polar ice and global warming remind me of a favorite poem:
    Fire And Ice, by Robert Frost.

    Some say the world will end in fire,
    Some say in ice.
    From what I’ve tasted of desire
    I hold with those who favor fire.
    But if it had to perish twice,
    I think I know enough of hate
    To say that for destruction ice
    Is also great
    And would suffice.

    Thanks again for your continued efforts and enlightening post series on polar ice variables!

  10. Certainly more useful than my usual recommendation to check back in September. :-)

    Nice to have something that we can attach numbers to.

  11. Also note that “extent” can be more of a proxy for wind than for temperature. If the wind blows the ice up against one of the continental land masses (North America or Eurasia), then it can compact the extent to a considerable degree without much loss in ice volume. It is just thicker ice that covers a smaller area.

    I am just not convinced of the value of Arctic “ice extent” as it seems to me to be more if a wind proxy than anything else. Antarctic ice extent would seem to me to be more of a temperature proxy than Arctic extent is.

  12. >>Arctic temperatures have been running cold for the last week or so.<<

    The Arctic temperature, especially North of 80 degrees North, will drop when the melting starting, all the heat is sucked out of the atmosphere… because of the heavy melting… the opposite happend when the ice starts freezing, heat energy is released to the atmisphere.
    see http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/meant80n.php

    Temperatures below average (high melting) and temperature above average (low melting) in the melting season (day 150-250)

    Kind regards from Greenland

  13. S.E. Hendriksen

    Are you suggesting that the ice started melting at minus 8C two weeks ago?

  14. It would be interesting to see how surrounding ocean temps and wind direction relate to past years as well. Perhaps that would explain 2007.

  15. Anu says:
    “Dropping. Like. A. Rock.”

    You make Steve’s point. The current extent is on par with 2006–on target to be one of the highest minimums come September–and yet you are talking about the raw numbers. I hope you are still around then and wonder what your explanation is going to be.

  16. Anu says: June 6, 2010 at 12:58 pm
    “Dropping. Like. A. Rock.”

    How about that Antarctic Sea Ice Area and Extent?

    And Global Sea Ice Area appears to be above average at the moment:

  17. Claude Harvey says:
    June 6, 2010 at 1:06 pm
    I see more variations from supposedly reputable sources on both thickness and extent of Arctic sea ice than I can track. The U.S. Navy seems to be saying it’s now thicker than ever while Goddard’s chart indicates it is thinner than in 2004. Al Gore (whom I exclude from the aforementioned “credible” sources) says the ice is almost all gone and British “pretend explorers” almost froze to death two years running while trying to climb over great mounds of the stuff between themselves and the North Pole while reporting that Gore was right.

    The whole subject has degenerated into a Tower of Babel.

    You are exactly correct. That’s a great non-scientific conclusion! And that huge variance you speak of, if put into numbers and proper frame, can be used to prove scientifically there is no underlying true science on Arctic ice exists but from the Navy! Someone should have at it.

  18. This wind energy that strews the current Arctic Ice introduces ‘heat’ to the region as the Sea Ice melts.
    When winter comes, the water freezes, and the heat energy (originally from the excessive winds) escapes to space.
    That would be the opposite of AGW, losing the energy to space and cooling the Earth.
    I think Joe Bastardi sort of alluded to that in one of his videos on accuweather.com.
    So, for Earth’s warmth sake, I do hope your prediction for a less than record melt holds.
    AGW has it back-asswards.

  19. I’m still looking to see if a La Nina is really happening. If so the Alaska area should melt slower than usual.

  20. @Steve Goddard

    Steve… no of cause not, but when the seawater temperature is above -1.5 C it starts melting… you will see the same pattern for the last 50 years, from around day 150 it starts.

    The sun radiation is strong now, even North of the 80th, and there is a lot of surface melting. On the Ice Cap the local Government cancelled all expeditions accross the Ice Cap for 2010, huge freshwater lakes and meltwater rivers (up to 100 meters width)

    But nothing unusual…it happends every year…. but this May was about +5 C warmen than normal and finally…the temperature North of 80 degrees North is not messured, but calculated (interpolated) from very few (4-6) weather stations, North of the 80th.

    The ‘Great Ice’ along the East-Coast and in Southern Greenland is similar to 2007, travelling South and melts

    http://www.dmi.dk/dmi/en/gronland/iskort.htm

  21. Anu said:

    Anu said:

    Dropping. Like. A. Rock.

    _____________

    Thanks for the update Steve, and thanks to Anu for the other links.

    And in the dropping like a rock category, I would also add:

    But of course, most of the AGW skeptics want to discount the PIOMAS model in favor of Steve’s PIPS 2.0 model (remember, both are models), even though the newer CICE based model includes projections for better ice dynamics that include the mass of ice contained in pressure ridges, etc. and up to 40% of the mass of sea ice can be contained in these ridges. PIOMAS includes that information.

    I certainly can’t fault the process of Steve’s analysis, for the process seems sound enough, but I would fault the data being used. It’s clear from previous posts that I hold very little stock in the accuracy of PIPS 2.0, but I also have a problem with the Unisys temperature anomaly. Compare that chart with this one:

    http://iridl.ldeo.columbia.edu/maproom/.Global/.Ocean_Temp/Weekly_Anomaly.html

    And I think you’ll see a big difference…especially in the temperatures in the N. Atlantic, which have been running warm and continue to do so.

    So, in general, if you believe Steve’s PIPS 2.0 model data, you’ll probably tend to believe his projection for the September low, and if you believe PIOMAS, and the other sources that I tend hold to, you might be pursuaded that we could see a September low approaching close to the 2007 level. I would like to point out that I first began making my projection that the September low would be lower than 2008 or 2009 back in March, when all the noise was being made about the “bump up” in sea ice extent as it made a run at getting almost back to normal. I knew this short bump up in ice at the end of the season would have to be thin, and would melt just as quickly, so I discounted it, and sure enough, we saw one of the most rapid early season melts on record as the sea ice extent went from one of the highest in th e past 8 years to the lowest in just over a month.

    Steve is right…sea ice volume is the better predictor than extent, and September will tell the story…and at least we’ll know whose data to discard, and so it will be useful one way or another.

  22. Arctic temperatures have been running cold for the last week or so.

    There’s still more snow on the ground in the Northern Hemisphere than usual.

    Comparison of June 5, 2010 to previous years on the same day:

    1980 to 2010

    http://igloo.atmos.uiuc.edu/cgi-bin/test/print.sh?fm=06&fd=05&fy=1980&sm=06&sd=05&sy=2010

    1985 to 2010

    http://igloo.atmos.uiuc.edu/cgi-bin/test/print.sh?fm=06&fd=05&fy=1985&sm=06&sd=05&sy=2010

    1990 to 2010

    http://igloo.atmos.uiuc.edu/cgi-bin/test/print.sh?fm=06&fd=05&fy=1990&sm=06&sd=05&sy=2010

    1995 to 2010

    http://igloo.atmos.uiuc.edu/cgi-bin/test/print.sh?fm=06&fd=05&fy=1995&sm=06&sd=05&sy=2010

    2000 to 2010

    http://igloo.atmos.uiuc.edu/cgi-bin/test/print.sh?fm=06&fd=05&fy=2000&sm=06&sd=05&sy=2010

    2005 to 2010

    unfortunately there is no data available at Cryosphere Today for that date in 2005

    http://igloo.atmos.uiuc.edu/cgi-bin/test/print.sh?fm=06&fd=01&fy=2005&sm=06&sd=05&sy=2010

    So, I’ll use 2007 instead. That’s ok because 2007 is when this focus on Arctic (North Pole) ice began. And it’s a year Steven Goddard is highlighting too :

    http://igloo.atmos.uiuc.edu/cgi-bin/test/print.sh?fm=06&fd=05&fy=2007&sm=06&sd=05&sy=2010

    Oddly enough there is more snow on the ground in the Northern Hemisphere in 2007 than 2010 but there is less concentration of Arctic ice in 2007 than 2010. That is the thickness pointed out by Steven Goddard? You can see a noticeable difference in ice in the Barrow, Alaska area and in the Laptev Sea.

    It looks like the Atlantic Ocean temperatures are going to be a key in melt this year, as Steven Goddard has pointed out.

    ———————————————————————————————–

    Thanks for these Arctic ice updates! What’s the best science blog in cyberworld? WUWT of course!

  23. Steve,

    As I have shown in your previous thread on the arctic ice “The Undeath Spiral”, you are incorrectly calculating average ice thicknesses from the PIPS maps. You need to take into account concentrations to get the right result from PIPS. For example, currently ice is 9% thicker on average than last year, not 18% thicker as you indicate.

    Calculating the trend from the annual ice-volume minima from the PIPS 2 data gives an ice loss of 2900 km^3 for the last decade, whereas PIOMAS gives 3400 km^3 for its dataset, quite reasonable agreement.

    Minimum ice extent is a tricky parameter to predict, given its dependence on wind and currents. However, I think it’s very likely that this year’s minimum ice volume will be lower than the 2007 value, as calculated by either PIPS or PIOMAS.

  24. In a warming world we should expect less ice in the Arctic. Hoping for more ice, as if this were evidence to disprove AGM, seems like a dead end argument.
    Looking at the graphs of annual ice extent I am unconvinced that the summer ice minimum can be predicted with any level of confidence. Wind currents, water currents etc.
    In fact this is the weakness of alarmist science – modest correlation, no error bars and a lot of friends pitching in as co-authors.
    Rather than year over year predictions I would be interested in decadal predictions of ice extent variation based on some measurable force.

  25. stevengoddard says:
    June 6, 2010 at 1:32 pm
    Anu,

    I take it from your comment that you didn’t read the article.

    Sure I read it – I’m interested in your analysis, Steven.

    ‘Dropping like a rock” is a description, not a prediction. Perhaps you missed the 6/5/10 speedup, after having dropped quickly through the last 7 years plots:

    There were record summer minimums in 2002, 2005, 2007 – the “weather” sure is being cooperative to the AGW predictions of less and less Arctic summer sea ice. I wonder if the weather gods will be cooperative again this summer ?

    Besides, I don’t make predictions about summer minimums based on data from just one Spring.
    I look at this:

    I’m predicting a summer minimum less than that of 2009.

    I also think the ice is thinner this year, which will help the summer melt:

    Concentration is looking pretty spotty along the incoming Atlantic warm currents, too:

    Less than 2009 – the gauntlet is thrown down.

  26. I am just not convinced of the value of Arctic “ice extent” as it seems to me to be more if a wind proxy than anything else. Antarctic ice extent would seem to me to be more of a temperature proxy than Arctic extent is.

    Ice extent is only a proxy for temperature for temperatures near freezing. The southern ocean gets very cold in Antarctic winter. Direct measurements show that the southern ocean has been warming faster than the global average, while ice extent has been trending up (although without much statistical significance). Thus, Antarctic ice extent is demonstrably a poor proxy for temperature. And of course, the whole point of a proxy is to use it when direct measurements are not available.

  27. I’ve been saying for some time that Steve’s often used PIPS 2.0 data is suspect at best, and so I wanted to give one more example of why this is so . Let’s take a look at the AMSRE sea ice concentration data for June 6, 2010:

    For example, if you study this very accurate map, that correlates very well with high resolution satellite photos, you’ll see large areas of open water near Siberia, in the Laptev Sea. Now take a look at this PIPS 2.0 MODEL map for June 6, 2010 (caution you must be running Internet Explorer 4.0 or better to view this site!):)

    http://www7320.nrlssc.navy.mil/pips2/archive/retrievepic.html?filetype=Thickness&year=2010&month=6&day=6

    In this same area of the Arctic Ocean, running from the Laptev Sea toward the Central Arctic, PIPS 2.0 is showing hardly any open water and a SOLID BLOCK of sea ice with thickness ranging ranging from 2.0 to 2.75 meters. Now, on the AMSRE map, we see in addition to the larger area of open ocean, there is also a fairly good size region of lower sea ice concentration heading into the central Arctic Ocean that falls almost down to the 50% concentration range. PIPS 2.0 totally ignores this data and see it shows a total monolithic block of sea ice. PIPS 2.0 is an OUTDATED model that is totally blind to concentration even though concentration is an important part of total volume. In any model that is trying to accurately predict the September minimum based on volume, it must take into account the conentration (in addition to pressure ridges, etc), for while volume is certainly better than extent only for a predictor, the best predictor is total mass of ice, and therefore, concentration is critical. PIPS 2.0 doesn’t look at concentration very well, however, PIOMAS, using the Los Alamos CICE model data does.

    You can study the two maps referenced above to find other big differences, and in doing so it doesn’t take too long to realize that PIPS 2.0 is not very accurate, as the Navy fully realized, and hence developed PIPS 3.0. Unfortunately, PIPS 3.0 versions were so good, and the Arctic so strategically important, that PIP 3.0 model data is mostly classified, but used every day for the safe navigation of the Arctic by ships and submarines. The rest of us will have to wait for CryroSat 2 to start giving out non-military sea ice thickness data later this year…

  28. I am sadly lax for not having previously thanked you for these updates.

    Thanks for these updates! ;)

  29. Steve Goddard says:
    June 6, 2010 at 2:41 pm
    S.E. Hendriksen

    Are you suggesting that the ice started melting at minus 8C two weeks ago?
    I believe that the minus 8C is taken in the shade?. If so all the ice thats in the sun can melt at that temp because its warmer in the sun.

  30. If the September Volume is above average the CAGW followers will revert to Area. If the Volume and Area are greater then it wil be Extent. If the Volumne and Area and Extent are greater then they will say is is a fluke of weather.

  31. I have been reading most of the ice and temperature articles the last few months, pro and con. It seems like when actual readings are involved, ice and cold are advancing. When models are involved, we have an ice free Arctic!

    My take – How do we stop advancing glaciers in the next few years?

    I haven’t seen any articles on how we prepare for this inevitability. I hope the advancing ice holds up for a few decades. Even if we burn all our “fossil fuel” at once, it won’t amount to a hill of beans against the impending ice age.

  32. GFW, oceans globally are not warming. There might be some circulation changes that warm parts here and there while other locations cool but the overall average for global oceans has been steady to slightly cooling temperatures. The oceans are not warming.

    But when people speak of AGW, they tend to speak of air temperatures as that is what data is usually produced. Sea ice doesn’t form in response to water temperature, it forms in response to air temperature.

    Anyhow, it is beside the point that ice extent, particularly ‘15%’ ice extent, is more a function of wind than temperature.

  33. And this just in:

    In parts of southern Sweden this winter’s snow cover lasted longer than in any year since the 1970s or 1980s.

    More snow? Albedo? Snow turning to ice in the Arctic? Need I show those references?

  34. R. Gates says:
    June 6, 2010 at 5:17 pm

    ……..Unfortunately, PIPS 3.0 versions were so good, and the Arctic so strategically important, that PIP 3.0 model data is mostly classified,………
    ===============
    If the data could have advanced the theory of the “catastrophic” decline of the arctic ice, it would have been declassified. Follow the money.

  35. First, I would like everyone to remember what makes the world go around ”
    Money” Global warming is an attempt to create a “World Tax System” . The funds would do nothing but create a ” New World Government”. Which wold be fine as long as you could find lots of HONEST politicians to run it. But we all know that will NEVER happen. I’m also interested in know just how many people out there thing the government would REALLY inform you of a serious threat from an incoming asteroid? I would be inclined to believe a scenario much like what was depicted in the movie “2012”. Seriously, knowing you couldn’t save but a few, what would you do? THEY could be selling seats on the ARK as we speak. Has it occurred to anyone else the nonchalant behavior exibited by world leaders about the economy, the oil spill or the increase of large earthquakes?

  36. crosspatch says:
    June 6, 2010 at 6:14 pm
    GFW, oceans globally are not warming

    ________________

    Incorrect. Ocean heat content has increased. See:

    http://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/

    ______________________

    stevengoddard says:
    June 6, 2010 at 6:08 pm
    R. Gates

    You keep talking about a data set which is not available. I’m having a difficult time seeing the point.

    ___________

    The point is PIPS 2.0 is NO’T data, but a model, and a old and inaccurate one at that, and you keep using it to project unsupportable claims as if they are fact, such as sea ice volume increasing 25% etc. You reject more recent volume models such as PIOMAS, which has at least some sort of validation, when you’ve not shown one iota of validation for the dated PIPS 2.0 MODEL. You are projecting a September sea ice minimum on an old model, and passsing it off as the only data available, which is incorrect…

  37. (Sorry if this is repeat post)

    stevengoddard says:
    June 6, 2010 at 6:08 pm
    R. Gates

    You keep talking about a data set which is not available. I’m having a difficult time seeing the point.

    ___________

    The point is, you are basing your entire projection on an outdated model. You keep selling the PIPS 2.0 model as if it were actually sea ice thickness data, but it is not. (why would we need CryoSat 2 then?). You reject the model projections from other models, such as PIOMAS, even though those models at least have some validation testing but you’ve not shown how the PIPS 2.0 model has been validated or backtested. PIPS 2.0 has no such validation runs, because it is so inaccurate, yet your entire thesis that we’ll see a higher summer low in September is based on this PIPS 2.0 model, that was abandoned by the Navy for any official use back in 2005 in favor of PIPS 3.0, which is also based on the Los Alamos CICE model, as is PIOMAS. In short, your PIPS 2.0 thesis is based on the very thin ice of an outdated model…

  38. “Amino Acids in Meteorites” mentioned snow cover. I looked for mentions of snow because it occurred to me that the ice cover is likely to melt much more after the snow cover is gone. So it would be interesting to add snow cover in as another factor.

    And, looking at NH spring snow cover, I see that 2003 and 2007 snow cover was dramatically different. Unfortunately, 2007 and 2010 are alike. There is plenty of other info on the Global Snow Lab site.

    http://climate.rutgers.edu/snowcover/chart_seasonal.php?ui_set=nhland&ui_season=2

  39. R. Gates

    The PIPS 2 data seems to correlate very nicely with past behaviour. Why are you so frantic to demonstrate otherwise? September will be here very soon ;^)

  40. R. Gates
    June 6, 2010 at 5:17 pm

    It’s obvious Arctic ice volume has increased since 2007. Your PIOMAS graph is a model. It does not match reality. It is wrong. I know your ilk hated it to be found out to be poor work. But as is the case with all ‘global warming disaster science’ it is flawed and based on the glass being half empty. The sky is not falling—sorry.

    September is coming soon. We will see the minimum then. And it will be confirmed, again, that PIOMAS is wrong.

  41. bubbagyro says:
    June 6, 2010 at 6:20 pm

    Need I show those references?

    Yes, you always need to show references. It might seem redundant but it’s still good to have everyone see where you get your ideas from. You don’t want to be like the global warming ilk who make it difficult to find their sources, or even hide ‘sources’.

  42. The DMI polar temp is almost completely irrelevant because it is for north of 80N only, whereas most of the ice that melts is between 70 and 80 degrees north…

  43. R Gates

    Would you supply the names of the modellors that created the Los Alamos CICE model?

  44. I also think the PIPS model is highly outdated. If you look back to August 2006, it is still showing ice over a meter thick just a few days before the large polynya in the Beaufort Sea begins to open up, which doesn’t seem physically plausible…

  45. Mark.R

    Good luck finding shade in the Arctic!

    So Steve, are you suggesting the sun shines all year round in the Arctic? That’s an interesting point of view, to say the least.

  46. R Gates

    For some bizarre reason you say PIPS is not as reliable as a computer model created by a computer programmer sitting in an office.

    PIPS is a product of the Navy.

    The Polar Ice Prediction System (PIPS 2.0) is the operational model run by the Naval Oceanographic Office (NAVO) for sea ice forecasting.

    http://www7320.nrlssc.navy.mil/pips2/index.html

    &

    http://www.navo.hpc.mil/

    The Navy has submarines in the Arctic. They are there all the time. They know the thickness of the ice because they can measure it on location in the Arctic itself. There can be no better method than the one they use.

    On the other hand, the climate model you are promoting is created by modellors working in under global warming funding. Their work must show that global warming is real because those providing the funding want such results. Also, their models do not use up to date measurements like the Navy does.

    It is incomprehensible that you would say a climate model made in a office is more reliable than one made by those out in the real world, and beyond that, by the Navy!

  47. Mike says:
    June 6, 2010 at 8:15 pm

    Mark.R

    Good luck finding shade in the Arctic!

    So Steve, are you suggesting the sun shines all year round in the Arctic? That’s an interesting point of view, to say the least.

    Ya moron, that’s what he’s saying.

  48. Boy, this thread is crawling with trolls. They really come out for this topic which “isn’t worth blogging about”.

  49. Nightvid Cole says:

    which doesn’t seem physically plausible…

    ———————————————————————————

    Have you contacted the Navy with your concerns?

  50. Mike says:
    June 6, 2010 at 8:15 pm

    Mark.R

    Good luck finding shade in the Arctic!

    “So Steve, are you suggesting the sun shines all year round in the Arctic? That’s an interesting point of view, to say the least.”

    Pay attention. They are discussing current temperatures, hence no shade.

  51. What about Volcanic Ash?we’ve had a fair amount of activity in the high NH and
    that coupled with that black soot from Asia (China /India) wouldn’t the Albedo
    get a bit dark? Increasing melt?

  52. I am curious about a feature of Arctic temperatures as measured by http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/meant80n.uk.php
    For at least the last ten years, the current year temperature has approached the crossing of 0 degrees C and the 1958-2002 average from below. In other words, the red line (current year temps) approaches the intersection of the blue line (freezing point) and the green line (1958-2002) average from below, never from above. That intersection apparently occurs around Day 162. Looks like that pattern will be repeated in 2010.

  53. RE: “I believe that the minus 8C is taken in the shade?. ”

    “A Stevenson screen or instrument shelter is an enclosure to shield meteorological instruments against precipitation and direct heat radiation from outside sources, while still allowing air to circulate freely around them”

    Therefore the temperature taken is Alway in the Shade.

  54. Mike says: June 6, 2010 at 8:15 pm

    stevengoddard says: June 6, 2010 at 6:08 pm
    “Good luck finding shade in the Arctic!”

    “So Steve, are you suggesting the sun shines all year round in the Arctic? That’s an interesting point of view, to say the least.”

    Shade is defined as “1 a : comparative darkness or obscurity owing to interception of the rays of light
    2 a : shelter (as by foliage) from the heat and glare of sunlight b : a place sheltered from the sun”

    http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/shade

    Hence, by definition, “finding shade in the Arctic” during the months when the sun doesn’t shine in the Arctic is essentially impossible, unless you would like to try to define nighttime as shady.

    Amino Acids in Meteorites says:
    June 6, 2010 at 8:47 pm

    “Boy, this thread is crawling with trolls. They really come out for this topic which “isn’t worth blogging about”.”

    Yep. The Warmists know that sea ice is one of the weakest links in the impressively flimsy catastrophic anthropogenic global warming narrative. We can expect them to circle the wagons and toss the kitchen sink in the coming months to try to obscure the fact that Earth’s sea ice is currently average and shows no signs of melting due to the claimed rapid global warming. It is much easier to fake temperature records than it is to effectively falsify the extent, area and volume of sea ice on Earth, as our Warmist friends are discovering…

  55. Just The Facts says:
    June 6, 2010 at 9:33 pm

    Curious, why questioning the assumptions that Steve puts forth is worrisome to you. It is natural and wise to question Steve’s reasoning, since he is not a sea ice expert and he has an agenda. A good example of a mistake that he has made repeatedly is the use of the PIPS2.0 model. The model was designed in part for use by the National Ice Center, but they ended up not using the model for their forecasts because of the poor performance of the model (it couldn’t even get the direction of ice motion right). And it certainly isn’t getting the ice thickness correct…just look at the the distribution of thickness values in excess of 2.5 m, in locations that is first-year sea ice (first-year sea ice grows to about 1.5m thick, 2.m thick at the most).
    Nevertheless, it is reasonable to expect the ice is thicker than it was the year following the 2007 minimum since more of the Arctic consisted of first-year ice that year than any other year, and first-year ice is thinner. So let’s say you have ice thickness this year at the values around the start of the 2007 melt season. That would mean that if you have a summer circulation pattern such as observed in 2007, then it is likely the sea ice would drop dramatically again this summer. If you have a different circulation pattern, it is likely the ice won’t drop quite as much. But if the ice is thinner than in 2007, then who knows.

    The reality is that scientists know that June ice concentration/extent/thickness/volume is not a good predictor for September ice extent because weather remains important in defining the end of summer ice extent. So what Steve just talked about in this post if nothing new, and in fact he should have referenced papers that have already discussed this. There are many out there, especially after the 2007 event.

    In terms of Arctic sea ice being an important indicator of climate change, it wouldn’t by itself, but the fact that all environmental variables in the Arctic are showing similar responses to warming, it is pretty obvious that the Arctic has warmed and continues to warm. There really is no denying it. The more important thing to focus on is what is causing the warming in the Arctic and what are the implications if the Arctic Ocean becomes ice free. Whether or not 2010 sees a new record low in sea ice is not really all that significant. Weather will always result in ups and downs superimposed on a trend. It is the long-term trend that is of interest, and there is nothing showing that the trend is changing.

  56. Amino Acids in Meteorites says:
    June 6, 2010 at 8:41 pm

    The PIPS2.0 model is not reliable. Just ask the folks at the National Ice Center (NIC) who provide forecasts of ice conditions for operational purposes. PIPS2.0 was designed for their use, but they found the data from the model was junk. It is not being used, time to get your facts straight. Just because it was made by the Navy doesn’t mean it actually works. BTW…in case you don’t know, the NIC provides ice forecasts for the government and people working operationally in the Arctic. The fact that they rejected PIPS2.0 should tell you all you need to know about the model’s accuracy…

  57. How do we stop advancing glaciers in the next few years?

    You get yourself a cardinal, do lots of praying and remember to keep your things handy for a quick departure.

  58. Amino Acids in Meteorites says:
    June 6, 2010 at 4:16 pm

    ==================

    Nice post!

  59. crosspatch said on June 6, 2010 at 2:10 pm

    “I am just not convinced of the value of Arctic “ice extent” as it seems to me to be more if a wind proxy than anything else. Antarctic ice extent would seem to me to be more of a temperature proxy than Arctic extent is.”

    I get the feeling you would like the Antartic to be temp related and the Arctic wind driven to match a held conviction crosspatch. Looking at the scientific thoughts on Antarctica it seems that is the one mainly connected to the wind, –

    “Using satellite images of sea ice and computer models the scientists discovered that the ozone hole has strengthened surface winds around Antarctica and deepened the storms in the South Pacific area of the Southern Ocean that surrounds the continent. This resulted in greater flow of cold air over the Ross Sea (West Antarctica) leading to more ice production in this region. ”

    http://www.antarctica.ac.uk/press/press_releases/press_release.php?id=838

    Andy

  60. Anu says:

    Less than 2009 – the gauntlet is thrown down.

    ====================================

    The funny thing is…that the gauntlet has been thrown down…but nobody really cares to be there to pick it up.

    Read: There IS no challenge.

    For chicken-littleists, the world is coming to an end because of CO2. For others, its science business as usual.

    That glove will be trampled and buried in the mud by the horses. Big bl**dy deal….2010 might be a “record”. 30 years is a drop in the bucket of geologic time.

    What gauntlet?

    Chris
    Norfolk, VA, USa

  61. jeff brown says:
    June 6, 2010 at 9:58 pm

    So, PIPs2.0 is unreliable, and the PIPs3.0 is classified.
    I certainly hope NOAA isn’t getting it’s inverted forecasts out of 3.0, like they did last winter.
    And one would hope that the forecast of continued El Nino weather that the models had wrongly forecast (oops) as Joe Bastardi pointed out, didn’t come from this hush-hush PIPs3.0 “if I told you I’ll have to kill you” model.
    Because right now, given the gov. forecast track record, I’d have to say they couldn’t predict their way out of a paper bag.

  62. stevengoddard says:
    June 6, 2010 at 7:50 pm
    R. Gates

    The PIPS 2 data seems to correlate very nicely with past behaviour. Why are you so frantic to demonstrate otherwise?
    _____________________

    Steve, I am hardly frantic. I simply wish to make sure that readers on this blog understand that the “data” you are making so much projection on is not data, but an outdated model. One poster here even suggested that it incorporated Naval submarine data on ice thickness and therefore had to be official. PIPS 2.0 is a model, no less than PIOMAS is a model, except for the fact that it is no longer in use by the Navy as they moved on to much more accurate and up to date models that use the far more sophisticated CICE model from Los Alamos. It is s long way to September, and I enjoy your updates…but no one should think your projections are based on data…

  63. Steven Goddard,

    As always….GREAT presentation here. I really appreciate the dedication to logic and evidence and clarity of presentation…without any spin.

    Chris
    Norfolk, VA, USA

  64. Imagine an ice cube floating in water. It occupies a much smaller area of water than a ground up ice cube. But which one melts faster? The ground up ice cube will of course melt faster. Having a wide extent in June is not necessarily a good thing, unless the ice is also thick.

    Y’know, I don’t recall that being a popular argument around here in early April.

  65. John B (TX) says:
    June 6, 2010 at 2:57 pm
    Anu says:
    “Dropping. Like. A. Rock.”

    You make Steve’s point. The current extent is on par with 2006–on target to be one of the highest minimums come September–and yet you are talking about the raw numbers.
    “on par” ? Is that what you call 2010 dropping down at the fastest rate in the satellite record, and blowing by 2006, now at 222,032km² below 2006 ?

    http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/seaice/extent/plot.csv

    Not sure what you mean by ‘raw’ numbers – do you mean the plot of daily sea ice extent such as this:

    or, the ‘raw’ data of minimum average monthly September sea ice extent like this ?

    I hope you are still around then and wonder what your explanation is going to be.
    Sure, I’ll be around in September.
    I look forward to hearing all the spin about how dropping below 2009 was no big deal, that the Arctic ice is still “recovering”, but it’s just weather, hey, bad winds, nobody saw those currents coming, see – we can’t even predict the weather, the remaining ice ridge is 200 feet tall according to a classified Navy report, uh, normal variation, ok, it’s a downward trend, maybe the ocean oscillation is 90 years long, not 70, but no death spiral…

    I’m easily amused, I’m sure there will be some good “explanations” come September.

    Steven has a good start on the spin:

    Conclusion : Based on current ice thickness, we should expect September extent/area to come in near the top of the JAXA rankings (near 2003 and 2006.) However, unusual weather conditions like those from the summer of 2007 could dramatically change this. There is no guarantee, because weather is very variable.

    Ah yes, the unusual weather, decade after decade after decade after decade.
    That is unusual.

  66. Amino Acids in Meteorites says:
    June 6, 2010 at 8:41 pm
    @ R Gates

    The Navy has submarines in the Arctic. They are there all the time. They know the thickness of the ice because they can measure it on location in the Arctic itself. There can be no better method than the one they use.

    On the other hand, the climate model you are promoting is created by modellors working in under global warming funding. Their work must show that global warming is real because those providing the funding want such results. Also, their models do not use up to date measurements like the Navy does.

    ============================================

    Damn good light shed on the subject!

    Also, for the US Navy…..it is a matter of life and death, not somebody’s comfortably well-stocked, well-funded modelling office.

    And a little gloating needs to be applied here: It REMAINS the mightiest Navy in the entire world. World events have been altered for the good, thanks the them.

    Chris
    Norfolk, VA, USA [The geographic center of the mightiest Navy in the known universe]

  67. jeff brown says:
    June 6, 2010 at 9:54 pm

    “Curious, why questioning the assumptions that Steve puts forth is worrisome to you.”

    Worrisome? Anu, R Gates and company provide an invaluable service to this site by fact checking, providing alternative viewpoints and keeping contributors and commenters honest. This openness to critical input is why skeptics are making strides while the Warmists are wallowing in their own deceit. My response to Mike June 6, 2010 at 8:15 pm was simply pointing out a factual inaccuracy/logical fallacy in Mike’s comment.

    “It is natural and wise to question Steve’s reasoning”

    I agree. If you replaced Steve’s name with the names of every other climate scientist in the world, you’d be a skeptic too…

    “A good example of a mistake that he has made repeatedly is the use of the PIPS2.0 model. ”

    Your opinion. I doubt the US Navy used a crappy model to predict where their nuclear subs could safely surface and launch their weapons in the Arctic until 2005, but time and research will tell how accurate the PIPS2.0 model is.

    “In terms of Arctic sea ice being an important indicator of climate change, it wouldn’t by itself, but the fact that all environmental variables in the Arctic are showing similar responses to warming, it is pretty obvious that the Arctic has warmed and continues to warm.”

    Temps in the Arctic seem quite average to me:

    http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/meant80n.uk.php

    “There really is no denying it.”

    Don’t mind if I’m skeptical of your assertion…

    “The more important thing to focus on is what is causing the warming in the Arctic and what are the implications if the Arctic Ocean becomes ice free.”

    That seems like a huge leap of faith, based on very limited data. What are your thoughts on why Antarctic Sea Ice Area and Extent is currently well above average;

    and Global Sea Ice Area is currently above average?

  68. I look forward to hearing all the spin about how dropping below 2009 was no big deal, that the Arctic ice is still “recovering”, but it’s just weather, hey, bad winds, nobody saw those currents coming, see – we can’t even predict the weather, the remaining ice ridge is 200 feet tall according to a classified Navy report, uh, normal variation, ok, it’s a downward trend, maybe the ocean oscillation is 90 years long, not 70, but no death spiral…

    ================================

    Nice to hear that defensive self-confession. Keep it coming.

    Definitely no death spiral.

    The only “death spiral” is that of the emo, chicken-little church of the AGW, which will lose its international parish in the next 5 years.

    Chris
    Norfolk, VA, USA

  69. rbateman says:
    June 6, 2010 at 10:20 pm

    So, PIPs2.0 is unreliable, and the PIPs3.0 is classified.

    I’m wondering what their sources are. It’s not the Navy I see.

  70. 007 says:
    June 6, 2010 at 6:09 pm
    Please clarify Anu.

    Extent, Volume, or Both?
    Extent.
    I’ll go with IARC-JAXA, but NSIDC will probably be close enough for yearly rankings to match JAXA.
    I’m expecting 2010 Arctic sea ice extent minimum to be less than in 2009.

    I would say volume too, if Cryosat-2 were delivering data, but I hear they will be taking 6 months for testing and calibration before “real” data is returned.

    It was launched April 8, 2010 so it probably won’t have data for the summer minimum. I’m also not sure how hard it is to calibrate Cryosat-2 data to Icesat data- I know sometimes it is controversial to match a new satellite with new instruments to an old dataset (e.g. TSI measurements) – but I know they are doing a lot of ‘ground truth’ tests already, comparing Cryosat-2 data to airplane flyovers, drill sites, etc. The question then becomes how accurate Icesat and other earlier estimates were. Plus, a lot of Icesat data (2008, 2009) hasn’t been analyzed and published yet, at least when I spent 20 minutes looking for it a few weeks ago…

  71. The trolls are out swarming late tonight. They’ve told us in the past that short term climate occurrences don’t mean anything. BUT THEY SURE ARE MAKING A LOT OUT OF MAY ARCTIC ICE TOTALS AND UAH TEMPERATURES FOR JANUARY TO APRIL THIS YEAR!!

    They are confused. ClimateGate hit them hard on the head. All they can say now is “PIOMAS……. 14,000 feet….. hottest year on record……. volume…….”

    Must suck to be them.

  72. Amino Acids in Meteorites says:
    June 6, 2010 at 8:06 pm
    R Gates

    Would you supply the names of the modellors that created the Los Alamos CICE model?
    Amino Acids in Meteorites says:
    June 6, 2010 at 8:09 pm
    R Gates

    I looked it up myself:

    There you go !
    Now you’re getting the hang of this Internet thing…

  73. Just a few weeks ago Watts Up With That was empasizing sea ice extent, I guess because that was going up. Now you are emphasizing sea ice volume, based on the PIPS2.0 model, I guess because sea ice extent has turned so much downwards?

  74. Save the Sharks,

    Both the Navy’s PIPS 2 model and PIOMAS give similar decadal rates of ice-volume decline. The only reason Steve prefers PIPS is that his faulty calculations of ice thickness and volume are based on their data. I have pointed out exactly where Steve is going wrong and how to calculate numbers which agree precisely with the values published by the Navy.

    Steve can of course choose to ignore his mistakes and continue to base his faulty conclusions on his incorrect calculations, but there should be no reason for his readership to do likewise.

  75. savethesharks says:
    June 6, 2010 at 10:18 pm

    The funny thing is…that the gauntlet has been thrown down…but nobody really cares to be there to pick it up.

    Are you speaking for all sharkmen, or just yourself ?

    Read: There IS no challenge.

    Conclusion : Based on current ice thickness, we should expect September extent/area to come in near the top of the JAXA rankings (near 2003 and 2006.)
    — Steven Goddard

    Sounds like a prediction to me, sts.
    But my prediction is better.

    For chicken-littleists, the world is coming to an end because of CO2.
    It’s all about the animals for you people, isn’t it…

    That glove will be trampled and buried in the mud by the horses.
    Horses.
    Again with the animals.

    Big bl**dy deal….2010 might be a “record”. 30 years is a drop in the bucket of geologic time.
    Yeah, and WWII was a drop in the bucket of History.
    What’s your point ? That nothing really matters ?

    What gauntlet?
    Try to keep up.

  76. Very interesting data posted. I wish I could trust the sources. Are not ALL scientists funded in some way by “you know who”. Does any of this data come from any source that is not funded by government? I ask again, whom do I trust for accurate information? NASA? Funded by, you got it, Gubment. I see phony data all the time! For example the story about the “Sea of Plastic” floating somewhere in the Pacific. The photo supplied as proof run with this article, a stunning shot of 1 floating plastic soda bottle. Or what about WHO trying to scare everyone on earth to rush out and pay for flu shots? You know they’ll be trying that one again! Misinformation and disinformation are known tools of social manipulation and used by con-artists and politicians all the time. All we can do at this point is trust OUR OWN judgment. One can quickly calculate the affects of a large volcano spewing poisonous gases into the atmosphere and simply come to the conclusion the we humans could NEVER have that kind of impact on the earth even if we tried to burn all the oil at once. My answer to the globalists who think we can somehow manipulate conditions on this planet is that they have themselves frozen for a few thousand years. We may have come far enough by then to terraform a small out of the way planet where they can go to spend their days living in caves and eating bugs and roots.

  77. R Gates

    would you provide your source(s) that shows CICE is used to determine thickness of Arctic ice? I am looking at their web site and it does not say they use it for that. I see only sea surface information:

    http://www7320.nrlssc.navy.mil/global_ncom/

    It is late now (11:20pm) or I’d look farther into it. But you must have already done that. You must have already determined that CICE is used for Arctic ice thickness since you say the Navy has stopped using PIPS for that purpose and is now using CICE for it. So would you provide link(s) to where you found that?

    …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..

    I do see where the Navy uses PIPS:

    The Polar Ice Prediction System (PIPS 2.0) is the operational model run by the Naval Oceanographic Office (NAVO) for sea ice forecasting……….. This is an Official U.S. Navy Web Site

    http://www7320.nrlssc.navy.mil/pips2/

  78. R Gates –
    The heat content trend, 0,4 10^22 J / year can be translated to 0,004 centigrades/year
    (700 m)
    Should we worry? Maybe.
    Do we have bigger problems? Probably.

  79. NASA told us in 2006 quite categorically that “the rapid decline in winter perennial ice the past two years was caused by unusual winds”.
    See http://www.nasa.gov/vision/earth/lookingatearth/quikscat-20071001.html

    With regard to sea temperature, the weaknesses an discrepancies in the data are discussed by Trenberth in Nature 20 May 2010 p304 where he admits “the results reveal that all curves flatten out after 2003″ and “the slowdown since 2003 is at odds with top-of-atmosphere radiation measurements. This discrepancy suggests that further problems may be hidden within the ocean observations and their processing.”

    Just shows how shaky all these conclusions are, and how poorly climate is understood.

  80. hosearodragass:

    THEY could be selling seats on the ARK as we speak.

    … and doing what with the money? Get real.

  81. I’d suggest that given that 2007’s poor showing was due to winds driving ice out of the basin and into warmer waters, that a forecast of the wind patterns would help you the most.

  82. There is a lot of discussion about PIPS in this thread. Why don’t Steven Goddard or Anthony Watts send a short email to the PIPS guys and ask if they think that PIPS 2.0 is a good model for studying arctic ice trends, especially as opposed to PIOMAS? I could send the e-mail myself, but I think that the chances of an answer is better if this website is behind it.

    It’s the navy, and they might not tell us the whole truth, but a simple “yes, we think that the PIPS 2.0 model would be excellent for that purpose, it’s at least as good as PIOMAS” or alternatively “no, don’t even think about using it” would be quite useful, and probably within the limits of what they are allowed to tell us.

  83. fred says:
    June 6, 2010 at 10:59 pm
    Just a few weeks ago Watts Up With That was empasizing sea ice extent, I guess because that was going up. Now you are emphasizing sea ice volume, based on the PIPS2.0 model, I guess because sea ice extent has turned so much downwards?

    The only reason why the extent was put on the front burner is to demonstrate that these things are cyclic.
    What really takes the cake is not volume or extent of the Arctic, but rather the hard correlation between the Arctic and Antartic Sea Ice. Like this: http://www.robertb.darkhorizons.org/seaice.anomaly.Ant_arctic.jpg
    And before that there was this: http://www.robertb.darkhorizons.org/0857806.jpg
    Just so you know, and can’t say nobody told you so, what you see going on in the Antarctic right now is highly probable to be happening in the Arctic and N. Hemisphere come December. Given the last 2 years of Winter ‘top this’ hopscotch that Nature has been gaming on Planet Earth, it’s a good bet that those of us in the N. Hemisphere will be feeling December a lot more than we will be feeling a melted Arctic in September. And that is IF we manage to escape the regional threat of a Year without a Summer, being 3.5 yrs. into the penalty box and another week of lackluster Solar Activity breathing down the literary pipeline. Rotted crops not included in offer.
    No, I’m not worried about the melt in the Arctic.
    Are you?

  84. This thread has deteriorated into the same “my model is better than your model” arguments. However, my reading of this article is simply a view towards predicting September sea ice extent. In other words, it doesn’t matter if the PIPS2.0 model is horrible and not at providing valid sea ice values. As long as whatever if does do correlates with the September extent.

    Personally, I think the time frame (10 years) and correlation value are too small to make any real valued judgement.

  85. For those saying PIPS 2.0 is junk.

    Please reference Tom P.’s comment from a while back presenting the POSEY 2009 article published in the peer journal. It is primarily based on a comparison of PIPS 2.0 model output to highlight a trend through 2008. Posey chose the minimums. If it is good enough for Posey’s publication, why has PIPS 2.0 suddenly become “junk”.

    This analysis uses the same method, it just happens to be a different date.

    Keep paddling Steve, I think you’re making headway.

  86. S.E. Hendriksen says:
    June 6, 2010 at 2:17 pm

    The Arctic temperature, especially North of 80 degrees North, will drop when the melting starting, all the heat is sucked out of the atmosphere… because of the heavy melting… the opposite happend when the ice starts freezing, heat energy is released to the atmisphere.
    see http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/meant80n.php

    How can you talk about melting in the Central Arctic Basin (80-90°N) while local temparatures are still below the melting point of sea ice (-1.8°c) ? Think again.

  87. Amino Acids in Meteorites says:
    June 6, 2010 at 11:23 pm
    R Gates

    would you provide your source(s) that shows CICE is used to determine thickness of Arctic ice? I am looking at their web site and it does not say they use it for that. I see only sea surface information:

    http://www7320.nrlssc.navy.mil/global_ncom/

    It is late now (11:20pm) or I’d look farther into it. But you must have already done that. You must have already determined that CICE is used for Arctic ice thickness since you say the Navy has stopped using PIPS for that purpose and is now using CICE for it. So would you provide link(s) to where you found that?

    _______________

    Good questions as there are so many links if you just google PIPS 3.0 and CICE together, but here is one good beginning overview:

    http://research.iarc.uaf.edu/presentations/ASM_08/presentations/CICE_ASM.pdf

    Google it and do your own research. PIPS 2.0 is no longer used, and PIPS 3.0 is integrated with CICE, and PIOMAS usses CICE as well…

  88. Hold on, wait.

    PIPS2.0 sucks, nobody that should be using it uses it, everybody “in the know” agrees that it is crap.. So where are the up to date pretty pictures coming from?

  89. Steven Goddard,

    When you wrote “The disparity between ice indices continues to widen.DMI has 2010 ahead of 2007 and 2008. Other indices have 2010 lower. Given the analysis above, these numbers are relativelymeaningless this early in the summer.” what precisely did you mean? When I look at the sea ice extent chart on the DMI web site (at http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/icecover.uk.php), the picture recently basically looks similar to the JAXA sea ice extent charts – they both show current sea ice extent lower than for the same date in 2007 or 2008 and have done so for at least several days into the past. What DMI ice index were you referring to?

  90. Arctic Sea Ice News #8
    ..”The quest for the Holy Grail. I have been looking for a reliable early predictor of September area/extent based on June ice data, and have found it – almost.”
    _______________________
    Steve, very interesting. Let’s see how it plays out. KUTGW – Keep up the great work!

    PS: General Observation on Comments-
    Some were right on, some were right off, some were left field, some were out of the park.

  91. Anu

    the source that was not supplied but I looked up for myself as i usually have to do, did not say that the Navy dropped PIPS.

    So it looks like you trolls made that up.

  92. Crashex,

    “If it is good enough for Posey’s publication, why has PIPS 2.0 suddenly become “junk”. This analysis uses the same method, it just happens to be a different date.”

    Steve’s analysis does not use the same method as he ignores the PIPS ice-concentration maps necessary to calculate the ice volumes correctly. Although he is understandably reluctant to admit it, Steve’s figures disagree with Posey’s published numbers . The correct calculations from PIPS 2.0 show that minimum ice volumes have dropped since 2007, contrary to the figures Steve continues to present here.

  93. Tom P

    again Tom I see you will not talk about what has happened since 2007.

  94. wilt,

    you will find that R Gates is propagandizing. either that or he just doesn’t know what he’s doing. everything he is doing half baked, at best.

  95. R. Gates :
    June 7, 2010 at 6:57 am

    you did not answer my question.

    Where did you find that the Navy stopped using PIPS to determine thickness and is instead now using CICE?

  96. PIPS is:

    The Polar Ice Prediction System (PIPS 2.0) is the operational model run by the Naval Oceanographic Office (NAVO) for sea ice forecasting….. The PIPS 2.0 makes a 120-hour forecast each day of ice displacement, ice thickness, and ice concentration…… This is an Official U.S. Navy Web Site

    http://www7320.nrlssc.navy.mil/pips2/

    You see? —i provide sources.

    All of you saying that the Navy has dropped PIPS still have not proven what you say

  97. Amino Acids in Meteorites says:
    June 6, 2010 at 10:39 pm

    Here is the mission statement for the National Ice Center:
    “The National Ice Center (NIC) is a multi-agency operational center operated by the United States Navy, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and the United States Coast Guard. Our mission is to provide the highest quality, timely, accurate, and relevant snow and ice products and services to meet the strategic, operations, and tactical requirements of the United States interests across the global area of responsibility.”

    I happen to know someone who works for the National Ice Center and asked him recently about the PIPS2.0 model. He informed me the model doesn’t provide accurate forecasts, wasn’t even able to get ice motion correctly. Not sure what part of the data assimilation in the model is causing the bad results, but the bottom line is they don’t use it for their forecasts because it’s not reliable. I don’t know how much NIC responds to user’s questions, but if you want to check it for yourself, you could try contacting them.

    I wonder why Steve doesn’t show their data/outlooks? I would think they have the most accurate information on ice conditions in the Arctic since they assimilate many data sources, not just the passive microwave satellite record.

  98. jcrabb: June 7, 2010 at 12:03 am
    The greatest Navy on the planet expects the Arctic to be summer ice free between 2013 and 2019.

    Maslowski is a simulations guy, and the .pdf you linked appears to be from a 2007 article in Computer magazine, with a new title and date.

    http://www.computer.org/portal/web/csdl/doi/10.1109/MCSE.2007.125

    He’s also the — *ahem* — prophet who, in 2007, declared that “Arctic summers will be ice-free by 2013″…

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7139797.stm

  99. Just the Facts writes:
    That seems like a huge leap of faith, based on very limited data. What are your thoughts on why Antarctic Sea Ice Area and Extent is currently well above average;

    and Global Sea Ice Area is currently above average?

    There are many good papers that have been published in recent years discussion the Antarctic sea ice trends and why the Ross Sea is showing such a large increase in extent (note the increase is dominated by changes in the Ross Sea). It has to do with strengthening of the circumpolar vortex around Antarctic in part a response to the ozone hole. Strong winds push the ice away from the coast in the Ross Sea, allowing new ice formation in the open water areas. The only place that shows strong decreases in Antarctic sea ice is the Bellinghausen/Admudsen Seas where there has been a strong warming signal. The reality though is that sea ice in the Antarctic is seasonal (forms in winter, melts out in summer). This is the direction the Arctic ice cover is heading towards.

  100. If PIPS 2 is so poor and compromised by low resolution (no evidence or figures are given for this) then it is curious indeed that the June thickness predicted by PIPS for the last decade or two correlates with September minimum with an Rsq of 0.65 as Steve shows. If PIPS is not accurately measuring thickness than what other component of the PIPS prediction is causing this correlation with the September minimum? It must be some other PIPS 2.0 parameter, maybe number of pdf manuals or powerpoint presentations published per year?

  101. @ Steve Goddard,

    Tom P. has raised a valid point. He added a “concentration term” in and got better agreement with ice volume estimates for PIPS2.0 and a different result than yours from the same data set (last post.)

    I do not understand how, for a variable composition, you can have an ice concentration constant by which to convert, however, his agreement with published volume conclusions is closer than yours.

    Can you address Tom P’s observation directly?

  102. Steve,

    I don’t understand FUD, it means what?

    Also, if he pointed out a *missing term* (concentration) in your calculation, it is missing for future (and current) iterations of your analysis, not just pre-2008.

  103. jeff brown says:
    June 7, 2010 at 7:52 am

    I happen to know someone who works for the National Ice Center and asked him recently about the PIPS2.0 model.

    Objection: Hearsay. Referred expert testimony is not in evidence.
    Sustained.

  104. Amino Acids in Meteorites cites

    http://www7320.nrlssc.navy.mil/pips2/ and says:

    You see? —i provide sources. All of you saying that the Navy has dropped PIPS still have not proven what you say

    This page has a link “info on the future PIPS 3.0″. If you follow that link, you find a page saying

    The most recent upgrade to the Navy’s ice prediction capability is the development of the next generation forecast system: PIPS 3.0. Improvements to this new forecast system include higher horizontal resolution, a more sophisticated ocean model, improved data assimilation and perhaps most important, an improved sea ice model, based on the Los Alamos CICE model. This sea ice model will include a Lagrangian formulation for calculating a multi-category ice thickness distribution, a snow layer, a brine pocket parameterization, non-linear profiles of temperature and salinity (Bitz and Lipscomb, 1999). The CICE model is presently being tested by NRL with Navy Atmospheric forcing from the Navy Operational Global Atmospheric Prediction System (NOGAPS). This model will be coupled to Navy Operational global ocean models. These improvements are geared towards providing better forecasts of formation and lead orientation. The PIPS 3.0 is presently going through its final development.

    When were these pages posted? Apart from the fact that the most recent publications referenced by them are dated 1999, there is little clue. However, if you use “view page source”, to look at the underlying HTML you find that there is an extra, final half-sentence on the page about PIPS 3.0, which has been commented out. This reads:

    and will begin its adaptation for operational use in 2003 with a scheduled transition into operational use in early 2004.

    I think you need to find a better citation than this one!

  105. Anu,

    Thanks for all those links on EXTENT, especially when the whole point of this article was that EXTENT on June 6th is a TERRIBLE predictor of what things are going to be like in September.

    Fabulous links though….

  106. Buffoon

    1. Concentration in the Arctic Basin has been almost 100% this year, so the term wouldn’t make any difference.

    2. PIPS undoubtedly already figures concentration in to the average thickness of a grid cell.

    His argument is a straw man intended to spread Fear Uncertainty and Doubt

  107. Steve,

    So reproducing the results from PIPS 2.0 that the Navy has published, which you have had a little difficulty achieving, is now seen as generating FUD? And I’ve already indicated the change in ice volumes since 2008, although you must have been too busy generating your spurious calculations that ignore ice concentration to notice.

    Here are the figures after 2007. I calculate the minimum ice volume for 2008 was 22% below the 2007 value, in excellent agreement with Posey’s published values based on PIPS 2.0. The corresponding average thickness dropped by 32%. In 2009 the minimum volume was 6% lower than 2007, with the thickness down 22%.

    Might I suggest you try to understand how to properly calculate ice volumes and average thicknesses from PIPS before publishing further on this topic?

  108. Steve, have you detrended the thickness and extent data before computing your correlation? Naturally, since both the thickness data and the extent data are dominated by trends, you will need to first detrend before doing the correlation. For example, if I correlate March first-year ice fraction with September ice extent I get a correlation of R=-0.70. This correlation however is driven primarily by the strong linear trends in both time-series. De-trended data show no correlation (R=0.06).

    What we find is that while there is memory between September and March in the ice cover, this half-year memory is erased during summer (as reflected in the above poor correlation and the near 0 autocorrelation between Septembers). Thus, summer circulation remains important. If the summer pattern continues a negative AO pattern (which at this point it is), then we can expect ice loss like the last few years.

    BTW, Jeff Brown is correct that NIC does not rely on the PIPS2.0 model for their forecasts. The reason being the models poor performance.

  109. Steve,

    PIPS concentrations have hardly been almost 100%. Here is the latest map: http://www7320.nrlssc.navy.mil/pips2/icon.html

    You may be mistakenly looking at the SSM/I maps, but as PIPS archive cautions: “SSM/I plots are mainly used to check the validity of the ice edge of the PIPS 2.0 forecasts. Thus, the central polar regions on the SSM/I plots generally have significant variations from actual conditions.” It is those actual conditions that PIPS is trying to reflect in the concentration maps.

    You say “PIPS undoubtedly already figures concentration in to the average thickness of a grid cell.” Undoubtedly not, which is why my ice volumes which use the concentration maps give a correlation of 0.99999 to the published data while your volumes that ignore concentration give a value of -0.6.

  110. There are certain people that comment on this site whom I am going to have immense fun laughing at if the predictions of global cooling over the next 30-40 years are indeed accurate.

    Of course, I personally hope that global cooling does NOT happen! Warm weather creates abundant crops, ideal conditions for life as we know it, and general prosperity. Cooler temperatures mean shorter growing seasons, more diseases, and lots of people being basically miserable.

    On the whole, although I would enjoy laughing uproariously at the AGW crowd during a 30-year cold snap, I would prefer warmth, comfort, and prosperity. Of course if it stays warm, various governments in the world might do whatever they can to kill off any resulting comfort and prosperity, so what is a sane person to do?

  111. Tom P,

    Good Work. Nice to see Goddard have to admit his mistake. Perhaps you could provide some base literature for him to read so he can better understand how to perform sea ice analysis?

  112. Tom P

    Nice FUD again. I never calculated the minimum volumes.

    If you want to check my work, try using the same dates and locations. It is really annoying arguing with someone who is engaging in intellectual dishonesty.

  113. jeff brown said: June 7, 2010 at 8:00 am

    “There are many good papers that have been published in recent years discussion the Antarctic sea ice trends and why the Ross Sea is showing such a large increase in extent (note the increase is dominated by changes in the Ross Sea). It has to do with strengthening of the circumpolar vortex around Antarctic in part a response to the ozone hole. Strong winds push the ice away from the coast in the Ross Sea, allowing new ice formation in the open water areas. The only place that shows strong decreases in Antarctic sea ice is the Bellinghausen/Admudsen Seas where there has been a strong warming signal”

    Good summary, and I’d like to add that the geography of Antarctica means the increases in the Ross sea outweighs the decreases in the smaller seas undergoing less ice increase hence why there is always a positive anomaly on the ice increase before it tops out at the maxima.

    What shows this is not temperatures getting colder down there is the fact that the melt doesn’t happen slower as you would expect.

    Andy

  114. Julienne

    I’m not interested in the ability of PIPS to forecast into the future. What I use is their short term maps which are constantly updated with real time data. The error is undoubtedly quite small in those maps.

  115. stevengoddard said June 7, 2010 at 9:28 am

    1. Concentration in the Arctic Basin has been almost 100% this year,

    Except for the “shear” polynyas you pointed out before. They seem to be getting bigger which I guess means they are not due to shear at all, see here.

    unless the shear seems to be increasing?

    Andy

  116. Steve,

    You said “If you want to check my work, try using the same dates and locations. ”

    You really haven’t been paying attention. The poor correlation of -0.6 between your figures and Posey’s published data was for comparable May volumes since 2000 as I showed a week ago: http://img413.imageshack.us/img413/2313/pipsvsgoddard.png

    These figures are for the arctic. What location did you have in mind?

  117. hosearodragass says:
    June 6, 2010 at 11:07 pm
    Very interesting data posted. I wish I could trust the sources. Are not ALL scientists funded in some way by “you know who”. Does any of this data come from any source that is not funded by government? I ask again, whom do I trust for accurate information? NASA? Funded by, you got it, Gubment.

    Where do you think the Navy gets its funding ?
    Bake sales ?
    Conquering third world countries ?

    Meanwhile, Remote Sensing Systems (the group that redid the UAH data analysis for satellite temperatures) is a private sector research company headquartered in Santa Rosa, CA – as non-Governmental as Boeing or Halliburton:

    http://www.ssmi.com/about_rss/about_rss.html

    http://www.akama.com/company/Remote_Sensing_Systems_a16f6401376.html

  118. Steven Goddard in his own words:

    “I have been looking for a reliable early predictor of September area/extent based on June ice data…”

    Less than 24 hours later:

    “I’m not interested in the ability of PIPS to forecast into the future.”

    And finally:

    “I’ve never understood why anyone would hold on to a belief system which requires that they are dishonest with themselves and others.”

  119. stevengoddard says:
    June 7, 2010 at 10:07 am

    Julienne

    I’m not interested in the ability of PIPS to forecast into the future. What I use is their short term maps which are constantly updated with real time data. The error is undoubtedly quite small in those maps.

    Steve, then I would suggest evaluating the accuracy of their short-term maps. There is radar altimetry data available that give indication of ice thickness for part of the Arctic Basin that you could compare with, though I don’t know off hand if the researchers working with that data have made it accessible for anyone to work with it. But simply looking at the age distribution of the ice in the Arctic basin and comparing that with the PIPS2.0 model, it does appear that the model is overestimating the ice thickness. I agree with you though that the ice is likely thicker this May than in May of 2008.

  120. Steve Goddard said:

    “September is only a few weeks away…”

    Hmmm…since it is not even officially summer yet (which begins June 21) and the sea ice minimum will occur around mid-Sept, which is the end of summer, I’d say that we have more than a “few” weeks to September…LIKE THE WHOLE SUMMER!

  121. stevengoddard said
    June 7, 2010 at 10:21 am

    “AndyW, The rotation which is producing the polynyas has continued. Temperatures have been too cold in the Arctic Basin for any significant melt.”

    You could be right however two things I’d say against that are

    a) The biggest open sea ares is to the west of Victoria Island which would protect the ice in that region from any shear going on in the main, land free, Arctic basin.

    b) These shear created areas of open water are appearing now in the early summer months, as they tend to do each year, that cannot be a coincidence. You don’t get them in mid winter.

    My explanation would be that the warm temps, and the temps do seem to be warmer than the freezing point of sea water for both air and sea at the moment, makes the ice more mobile as it melts and the currents and wind do the rest. So I’d go for a combination of factors including increasing temperatures.

    If you decide to throw out temps for some reason then you end up with something along the lines of 2007 where Anthony said it was winds causing it to all be blown out of the periphery of the Arctic basin and so melting at more southerly lattitudes whilst you said it was wind blowing it towards the north where it got thicker ! In this case you are at polar opposites, pardon the pun. I’d say it blew it to the north so making the extent smaller but also the winds were warm and the ambient temps were high so some of it got melted.

    There is an aversion with some folk on admitting any loss of ice in the Arctic basin is due to melting, I wonder why? I think it leads you guys astray. Though I am glad you are opening up for discussion.

    As you say though, roll on September!

    Andy

  122. PeterB in Indianapolis says:
    June 7, 2010 at 9:25 am
    Anu,

    Thanks for all those links on EXTENT, especially when the whole point of this article was that EXTENT on June 6th is a TERRIBLE predictor of what things are going to be like in September.

    Yes, if all we had was the EXTENT data from June 6, 2010, I would agree – a prediction would not be very good.
    But since we have context for all this data with satellite measurements back to 1972 and models predicting the expected results of CO² buildup, I am not making my prediction based solely on June 6th, 2010 extent data, as my previous Comments make clear.

    I do enjoy how “skeptics” are so sure of themselves, though :-)
    It will make future befuddlement all the more amusing.

    Fabulous links though….
    Why thank you.

  123. stevengoddard says:
    June 7, 2010 at 10:04 am
    I’ve never understood why anyone would hold on to a belief system which requires that they are dishonest with themselves and others.

    Likewise, so it should be easy to demonstrate the fidelity of your calculation method and remove all doubt, replicate the past calculations of Posey as Tom P suggests.

    stevengoddard said June 7, 2010 at 9:28 am

    1. Concentration in the Arctic Basin has been almost 100% this year,

    Over the area you selected at the start of this thread it’s about 90%, so that’s a difference in thickness of about 0.25m.

    Imagine an ice cube floating in water. It occupies a much smaller area of water than a ground up ice cube. But which one melts faster? The ground up ice cube will of course melt faster.

    Click on the url for the image you posted: http://ice-map.appspot.com/?map=Arc&sat=ter&lvl=7&lat=67.940426&lon=-168.991006&yir=2010&day=149

    Look at it at full magnification by the Bering strait, looks like a ground up cube to me!

  124. Julienne

    One thing I have learned from this exercise is that correlations between ice age and thickness are not what they are cracked up to be. Much of the thick ice is the result of compression, rather than age.

  125. stevengoddard says:
    June 7, 2010 at 10:21 am
    AndyW,

    The rotation which is producing the polynyas has continued. Temperatures have been too cold in the Arctic Basin for any significant melt.

    It’s not rotation (shear) that causes the polynyas it’s the offshore winds (normal stress) as I’ve told you before.
    According to the source linked to here the daily mean temperature north of 80ºN is ~-2ºC, the melting point of sea ice, so it’s certainly warm enough to melt. Also half of the Arctic Basin is south of 80ºN (the part where the melting is occurring)

    John B (TX) says:
    June 7, 2010 at 10:34 am
    Maybe I missed it. What is the difference between AMSR-E Sea Ice Extent (10.6 million km2) and NORSEX SSM/I extent (around 11.6 million km2)?

    For one thing resolution, AMSR-E has higher res. also ever since the SSM/I satellite sensor had problems a year ago NORSEX has been out of line with all the other sites.

    http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/en/home/seaice_extent.htm

    http://arctic-roos.org/observations/satellite-data/sea-ice/ice-area-and-extent-in-arctic

  126. stevengoddard says:
    June 7, 2010 at 10:10 am
    Lots of ridiculous FUD being posted here.

    Fear, Uncertainty, Doubt.

    I don’t see it – are you Afraid of the Arctic sea ice not recovering ? I see competing predictions, but no Fear in these comments.

    September is only a few weeks away, and it will become obvious who is correct.
    Yes.
    Yes it will.
    (about 15 weeks from now)

  127. Tom P.

    You have been answered: Your previous objection to Steve’s analysis suggested that the product (his result) of x = pixelarea*pixelheight was incorrect and needed a further term thusly: x = pixelarea*pixelheight*pixelconcentration. Steve said ice concentration is close to 100%

    Therefore, his product and yours would differ by the term pixelconcentration. Can you please show your pixelconcentration term (numerically, here) that correlates your result to the published amount? And your justification?

  128. stevengoddard says:
    June 7, 2010 at 10:57 am
    R. Gates

    Meteorological summer is June-August. June 21 is often considered mid-summer, because the sun is at it’s peak.

    http://heritage-key.com/blogs/ann/stonehenge-summer-solstice-2009

    ____________

    Your qualifications always amuse me. We’ve got most of June, all of July and August and part of September until the minimum, or at least 12 weeks of summer melt season ahead, and I don’t consider that to be a “few”. But your Sea Ice Updates are one of the highlights of my week (shows you how boring my life must be), so keep them coming!

  129. R. Gates,

    FYI, a “few” = more than a “couple”; less than “many”. There are 4.3 weeks in a month. You say 12 weeks to go.

    Do the math.

  130. The current AMSR-E 2010 ice curve is tracking close to the 2006 curve – at the bottom of the group. The 2006 curve stayed bottom of the class till July, at which point it started cutting across the other years. At the September minimum it ended second highest in the last decade – perhaps 2010 will do something similar?

  131. Smokey says:
    June 7, 2010 at 11:50 am
    R. Gates,

    FYI, a “few” = more than a “couple”; less than “many”. There are 4.3 weeks in a month. You say 12 weeks to go.

    Do the math.

    ___________

    Computing…stand by please…

    Result: 12 is more than a few.

  132. phlogiston says:
    June 7, 2010 at 11:50 am
    The current AMSR-E 2010 ice curve is tracking close to the 2006 curve – at the bottom of the group.

    Excellent observation. Yes, the sine is on the low side now, like 2006, and when Sept. rolls around the highest probability is for the sine to be on the high side. Which was the entire point of the April extent being on the high side of the sine.
    Unfortunately, the natural sine is totally lost on the warmists, who proclaim only straight lines which nature abhors.
    The Ice Melt Alarmists are in full swing, and the reason could not be more obvious than the current headline for which
    the Senate is now going to vote on. Statistical Charades are the order of the day. How else are the Warmist Lobbyists to justify ceding Congressional power to the EPA?

  133. Gates, wake up! You were responding to Steve Goddard’s statement about ‘June-August’.

    Sheesh, no wonder you’re confused about this whole subject. Going from months to weeks because it’s a convenient argument is exactly what you’re accusing Steven of doing: “Your qualifications always amuse me.”

    OK, by the numbers:

    1: Part of June
    2: July
    3. August
    4. Part of September

    3+ months, see? A few months.

  134. stevengoddard says:
    June 7, 2010 at 11:46 am
    Anu

    What troubles me is people who come here with an agenda and waste everybody’s time.

    Your agenda doesn’t trouble me, Steven.
    You lay out your thoughts logically, and you tackle interesting topics. Even if I don’t agree with all of your conclusions, I enjoy the data sources you and other commenters find on the Internet, the papers, the quotes from knowledgeable people, the questions, the predictions, the explanations, etc.

    I think the Internet doesn’t yet allow “the public” to follow all aspects of an interesting science (textbooks are not free and searchable, many scientific papers are behind paywalls, organizations are not setup to be transparent in the work they do, a lot of knowledge is located “in heads” and not yet in textbook form, etc) but I think it is at a point where it is now interesting to try and follow what they are doing. And I think what becomes “publicly available” will continue to improve.

    Have you seen the KMZ files for things like animating Arctic sea ice changes in Google Earth ?

    http://nsidc.org/data/google_earth/

    I think this reflects Science’s new respect for intelligent amateurs who are interested in following along with developments, and the game-changing nature of the Internet and powerful personal computers – organizations can’t change overnight, but I think sites like WUWT are encouraging many scientific organizations to put more of their work on the Internet, in an easier to digest format.

    (Of course, developments like the Virginia AG trying to sue a University for “scientific fraud” will slow down these developments, and make organizations more cautious about releasing works in progress to the Public, possibly consulting with lawyers at every step, but I think the overall trend is towards more engagement with a curious Public).

    The Comments which are a waste of time, I just skim and skip over.

  135. stevengoddard says:
    “What troubles me is people who come here with an agenda and waste everybody’s time.”

    I’m finding the Smokey/R.Gates parsing of what a “few” is to be very tedious. Maybe I’m missing it, but the point is, we’ll see soon enough so why not wait the short time until September to see how predictive this is.

    While a few of the exteme AGW supporters have thrown out prediction like an ice free north pole back in 2008 (now that’s funny!) most do like this:

    http://climateprogress.org/2009/05/13/thin-ice-free-arctic/

    “North Pole poised to be largely ice-free by 2020″

    They get the shock value of a ridiculous prediciton today, and no one will remember it in 2020 when it fails to appear. In this case, September will be here soon enough. Let’s wait and see.

  136. stevengoddard says:
    June 7, 2010 at 11:03 am

    Julienne

    One thing I have learned from this exercise is that correlations between ice age and thickness are not what they are cracked up to be. Much of the thick ice is the result of compression, rather than age.
    ——————————
    Unfortunately we do not have a long time-series of ice thickness to run any statistical analysis with. Thus, fractions of first-year ice versus multiyear ice are the best proxy information on ice thickness out there. It is true that thinner ice compresses more, so the relationship between ice age and thickness is not perfect: we would expect areas of more heavily ridged/rafted ice as the Arctic Ocean becomes more dominated by first-year ice. This is basically the situation we have today. Back in the 1980s, 46% of the Arctic basin consisted of FYI during March, and 54% was MYI, whereas during the 2000s, 69% of the Arctic basin was FYI and 31 was MYI during the same time in March. Since FYI tends to grow to be about 1.5 m thick, this would imply a thinner ice pack today than 20 years ago, but I would expect to see regions of thicker, deformed FYI.

    When you look at survival rates of FYI versus MYI during summer you find that on average 60% of the FYI melts out and 20% of the MYI. So certainly having an Arctic Ocean dominated by more FYI sets the system to be more vulnerable to summer ice loss. But as 2009 clearly showed, summer circulation remains as (or more important) in defining the end of summer ice cover. The system does not appear yet to have reached a state where it is too vulnerable to survive summer regardless of the summer circulation pattern. This is why it remains very difficult to do forecasting…

  137. Smokey says:
    June 7, 2010 at 12:34 pm
    Gates, wake up! You were responding to Steve Goddard’s statement about ‘June-August’.
    _________

    Yes I was Smokey, and Steve said, “September is only a few WEEKS away…”

    I don’t consider 12 weeks as a few…but thanks for making weeks into months…

  138. Julienne

    Thanks for your comments.

    In 2008 the North Pole started out with first year ice, and it was a warm summer at the pole. Yet it didn’t melt out. This implies to me that an ice free Arctic may be impossible under current climatic conditions.

  139. 2007 Was the “GREAT MELT OFF” seethe HUGE areas of HOT water well above 80 degrees North: 2007 vs 2008:

    http://www.arctic.noaa.gov/reportcard/ocean.html

    You have 2008 as thinner. By a LOT.
    So Your Model is DISPROVEN.
    Last time I heard, SCIENCE still has to check Theory with REALITY.
    Piomas is ONLY concentration — that is why it has 5 meters near alaska !

  140. jeff brown says: June 7, 2010 at 8:00 am and AndyW agrees: June 7, 2010 at 10:01 am

    “There are many good papers that have been published in recent years discussion the Antarctic sea ice trends and why the Ross Sea is showing such a large increase in extent (note the increase is dominated by changes in the Ross Sea).”

    Did you look at those “many good papers” with the same skeptical eye that you look at Mr. Goddard’s work?

    “Strong winds push the ice away from the coast in the Ross Sea, allowing new ice formation in the open water areas. The only place that shows strong decreases in Antarctic sea ice is the Bellinghausen/Admudsen Seas where there has been a strong warming signal. ”

    Interesting, the facts seem to indicate the exact opposite. If you look at these Antarctic Concentration images from June 7th 2007 and today;

    you’ll note that the largest increase in sea ice area and concentration appears to have occurred in the Bellingshausen/Amundsen Seas (spelled correctly), the ice around the most of the rest of Antarctica seems to have increased in both area and concentration, except in the Ross Sea where area seems to shrunk a little bit though is more concentrated.

    So what do you find more compelling, verifiable facts, or “many good papers” that seem to contradict the facts?

  141. Buffoon,

    The ice concentration tells how much ice coverage there is in a pixel. Hence the volume of ice in the pixel is the multiple of the average thickness in that pixel, the concentration in that pixel and the pixel area. There is therefore no single concentration factor, but a value for each pixel. I have shown how to derive the total ice volume using ImageJ in the “undeath spiral” thread.

    Here is a plot of the volume calculated both with and without including the PIPS concentration maps for the minimum ice volumes of the three most recent ice minima published by Posey.

    It is obvious that by including the concentration in these calculations, there is very good correlation between the published and calculated values. If you ignore the concentration values, as Steve does, you are no longer calculating a number directly related to the ice volume.

  142. Gates

    Dictionary definition:

    One: A case of being singular, not plural
    Few: More than one but not many
    Many: Constituting a large number

    Assuming: 1=1, few = x, many = y

    We conclude: One < Few < Many is equivalent to the statement 1 < x < y

    You two are arguing over your opinions, you are amused by Steve's completely valid use of language, and we can define that x < 12 for you in particular, but not necessarily the rest of the world, and that you will persuasively argue that point.

  143. stevengoddard says:
    June 7, 2010 at 1:40 pm

    Julienne

    I have measured from PIPS 2007 maps that 4+ metre thick ice tripled in area between August 1 and Sept. 15. How would you explain this?
    _______________________________
    Steve, given the strong winds that persisted most of the summer of 2007 that pushed the ice away from the coasts towards the pole, I would expect there to have been more ridged ice, but not necessarily occupying a large spatial region. I suppose the question would be how thick that ice already was (since it was mostly MYI at that point) and how much it could have ridged/rafted under those winds. I don’t believe anyone has actually looked at that yet, but it would be an interesting project.

    My understanding in the scientific community is that the PIPS2.0 model is not very accurate, so I wouldn’t put a lot of stock in the actual values of thickness coming from it. You can go to http://rkwok.jpl.nasa.gov/icesat/index.html and look at the ICESat thickness values during Feb/March and September and you don’t see evidence of large regions of 4m ice at the end of summer of 2007. But you do see some regionally thicker ice in the Beaufort that may have been a result of more ridging.

  144. Concentration Is NOT thickness. It’s just the proportion of ice-covered, versus open water in an area.

    Planes and Satellites read thickness by measuring height above sea level. Subs read thickness by draft below sea level. Ships & shore stations measure it.

    Piomas incorporates plane, ship & shore data.
    Pips does not. They say so.

    Piomas — which was made in order that MANY researchers could “plug in” their differing expectations so ought to have only the GIGO bias e.g.
    Planes only risk flying far from Shore when Satellites are not up, so it should underestimate if the Center area melt off — yesit should UNDER estimate the Melt (the opposite of what AGW wants) —
    check it versus ICESAT: a near perfect match, save LESS of a melt than ICESAT at 2007’s minimum.

    … “Logic” that Pips MUST include Sub data shows you do not “Think Navy”.
    What, you want to give out a MAP to where the Subs are ?
    Make a First-Strike Nuclear War Winnable ?
    They’d be cashiered for a Security violation.

  145. Julienne ,

    Thanks for the information. Are you aware of any better data set than PIPS 2 which is available with daily ice thickness numbers?

    Also, do you have any reason to believe that PIPS 2 numbers are (relatively) inconsistent from year to year? I understand that the absolute thicknesses may not be precise.

  146. Steve

    For your reference, this Pentagon report might be of interest;

    http://www.stormingmedia.us/40/4062/A406204.html

    and per the links above and below, Pamela Posey seems like she might be a good person to reach out to, as she led the, “Software Users Manual for the Polar Ice Prediction System Version 2.0″ and participated in the, “Validation Test Report for a Navy Sea Ice Forecast System: The Polar Ice Prediction System 2.0″

    http://www.stormingmedia.us/authors/Posey_Pamela_G_.html

    Pamela’s contact info can be found here:

    https://www1.cmos.ca/Amsoft%20Web%20Data/upload/abstracts115/7052archive.html

  147. Steve,

    You were recently very keen on the Navy’s PIPS 2.0 dataset. Why now rather than use the concentrations maps from PIPS 2.0 are you resorting to eyeballing the Cryosphere today maps? If there is some glitch with running your code on your supercomputer, why don’t you just use ImageJ to get out some proper numbers from the PIPS 2.0 dataset as I showed earlier?

    PIPS 2.0 does show 2008 as the lowest ice volume of the last three years, while PIOMAS shows 2009. Both, though, show lower ice minima for these two years compared to 2007 and, as I’ve shown, very similar decadal trends.

    If you would like to think there has been a recovery in ice volume since 2007, you’re best off ignoring both PIOMAS and PIPS 2.0.

  148. stevengoddard
    June 7, 2010 at 2:05 pm

    Tom P has a penchant for ignoring what’s happened in Arctic ice since 2007.

  149. Julienne says:
    June 7, 2010 at 12:53 pm

    When you look at survival rates of FYI versus MYI during summer you find that on average 60% of the FYI melts out and 20% of the MYI.

    What time frame was used to determine these percentages?

  150. A few things:

    A big thanks to Steve for keeping this interesting topic open and all those who have provided very insightful comments. It seems that though Steve might be putting credance into PIPS 2.0 volume data than should be, his general approach is quite sound and has provided lively debate.

    I’ve emailed a few experts with the following questions, which I think would provide some much needed clarity on some of the issues we’ve raised here:

    a) Could you give a brief overview on the accuracy and differences between the PIPS 2.0, PIPS 3.0, CICE, and PIOMAS models.

    b) Do you see PIPS 2.0 (a non-CICE model as being abandoned in favor of PIPS 3.0, (CICE based model)? Also, For example, lately it seems PIOMAS and PIPS 2.0 are diverging greatly in their estimate of the arctic sea ice volume, so which is more likely to be accurately reflecting the current state of affairs in the arctic?

    c) I’d be curious how PIPS 3.0/HYCOM might compare to what PIOMAS is saying (if PIPS 3.0 model data can be released or is even available in any form for non-military uses).

    4. Perhaps you offer a general thought about how the data we hope to be getting soon from CryroSat 2 will help with the models?

    _______

    I suspect now that we have a few true Ph.D level ice experts who’ve joined this discussion, and they might be able to answer these questions quite readily…

  151. Nigel Harris :
    June 7, 2010 at 9:20 am

    Your information does not say PIPS 2.0 has been dropped for ice thickness. You are talking about CICE forecasting into the future beyond 120 hours. For example, CICE has a forecast of summer ice free Arctic by 2040. I was not talking about long term climate modelling. I am talking about thickness of Arctic ice now.

    see here:

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/06/06/wuwt-arctic-sea-ice-news-8/#comment-404362

    here:

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/06/06/wuwt-arctic-sea-ice-news-8/#comment-404570

    and here:

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/06/06/wuwt-arctic-sea-ice-news-8/#comment-404575

    You are being like Tom P and R. Gates both who reply something that isn’t an answer to what was asked.

    So up until now none of you have provided and proof that the Navy has dropped PIPS 2.0 for current ice thickness. You’ve talked about other things I’m not even asking about. And I don’t know how I could have made what I was talking about clearer. I just sit back and shake my head at how sloppy things are sometimes.

  152. jeff brown

    Thanks for your reply. It was polite—and thanks for that too.

    I’m glad you talked to someone who actually works at the National Ice Center. And I appreciate his insight! My brother was in the Navy for five years. He was always out in submarines on long missions. I had a mind to call him and talk to him about Arctic ice. But I can see enough from the web sites I’m going to that current ice thickness from PIPS 2.0 is still used by the Navy. And I’m sure the best data we could have for Arctic ice thickness is from the Navy since they have submarines there on location.

    But my comments about PIPS is only about current ice thickness and not forecasts of ice thickness into the future. The volume data we can derive from PIPS 2.0 is probably the most accurate available in the United States. And it’s clearly better than PIOMAS.

  153. R. Gates

    do you know the difference between current data and model forecasting? You seem to have trouble with that.

  154. Amino Acids in Meteorites says:
    June 7, 2010 at 5:07 pm
    R. Gates

    do you know the difference between current data and model forecasting? You seem to have trouble with that.
    _________

    Hmmm…let’s see, a model would say what something “might be” now, or in the future, based on a variety of different factors being put into some series of very complicated equations…and current data would say what something actually is based on a direct measurement of it…would that approximately the case?

    And as well all know…there currently is no actual data that can tell us what the thickness of the sea ice across the entire arctic at this moment…and everything out there is a model…from PIPS 2.0 or 3.o to CICE to PIOMAS. For if we had actual data…there would be no need for CryoSat 2 right?

    But, the big issue is..which model is taking in the right factors, in the right proportions, in the right equations, and coming the closest to spitting out a model that is closest to describing what is actually happening right now in, and on, and under the vast expanse of very dynamic Arctic sea ice, and more importantly, what model will be best to tell us what is likely to happen in the future as well.

    I know from personal communication with at least one model maker (Dr. Zhang with his PIOMAS model) that they await eagerly await data from CryoSat 2 in order to continue with refinement and validation of the model, and I would assume this is true for the others as well.

    The error by many is assuming that PIPS 2.0 is actual valid measurement, and not model data.

  155. fred wrote,
    “Just a few weeks ago Watts Up With That was empasizing sea ice extent, I guess because that was going up. Now you are emphasizing sea ice volume, based on the PIPS2.0 model, I guess because sea ice extent has turned so much downwards?”

    I think the April bump in ice extent was the whole inspiration for this series of blogs about Arctic ice, which has turned into a dramatic contrast between the WUWT way of knowing vs. that of Arctic science.

    The PIPS stuff came in as a fallback, apparently with no effort to verify, because when their website images were analyzed by certain methods they appeared to give more pleasing results, whereas all the other Arctic indicators do not.

  156. R. Gates says:
    June 7, 2010 at 5:45 pm

    The error by many is assuming that PIPS 2.0 is actual valid measurement, and not model data.

    Ok great brilliant one. Get in touch with the Navy since they are the ones your inept mind has a problem with.

  157. Gneiss says:
    June 7, 2010 at 6:19 pm

    The PIPS stuff came in as a fallback….

    This is what your opinion of the data is. The data is your enemy, isn’t it little huckleberry?

  158. no wonder some people believe in global warming—they think data itself is a model. nothing is real to them

  159. Using The Cryosphere Today website, I just did a comparison of Arctic sea ice @ June 6 2007 against June 6 2010.

    It seems quite clear from this comparison that the 2010 Arctic sea ice concentration appears much higher than it was at this point in 2007 (and higher than June 6 2008). Its just a shame that June 6 2009 was unavailable.

    Looking at this, unless conditions become increasingly unfavourable into September I would doubt we will Arctic Sea Ice concentrations below either 2007 or 2008 levels.

  160. R. Gates

    you still have not provided proof that the Navy has stopped using PIPS 2.0 in the ice thickness measurements. It is apparent you never will because you would have done so by now to save yourself this repeated embarrassment. The fact is is you made that up. The fact is is you don’t know what you are doing. The fact is you and your ilk are desperate. You are losing and you know it. Nothing is saving you. And you can feel that. So you fight dirty thinking that will help you win. But it is beautiful that you are doing that because you expose even more of your your crowd is all about,
    ~huckleberry.

  161. stevengoddard says:
    June 7, 2010 at 2:05 pm
    Tom P,

    What is clear is that the PIOMAS record anomaly is incorrect.

    There was considerably more thick ice on June 1, 2010 than there was on June 1, 2008

    http://www7320.nrlssc.navy.mil/pips2/archive/pips2_thick/2010/pips2_thick.2010060100.gif

    I don’t buy it, compare that image with the JAXA image, the accumulation of thick ice on the asian coast on the PIPS map coincides with a shoreline lead near Wrangel island and an emerging polynya on the Greenland coast on the edge of the Fram strait.

  162. David W
    June 7, 2010 at 6:57 pm

    It seems quite clear from this comparison that the 2010 Arctic sea ice concentration appears much higher than it was at this point in 2007 (and higher than June 6 2008)

    It would appear you are right. The reason there is an argument over that in these type of threads is the global warming crowd doesn’t want you to believe what you see. They want you to look at their smoke and mirrors.

  163. R. Gates says:
    June 7, 2010 at 5:45 pm

    I know from personal communication with at least one model maker (Dr. Zhang with his PIOMAS model)

    Why don’t you have Dr. Zhang drop in here and make his PIOMAS prediction for September?

  164. David W says:
    June 7, 2010 at 6:57 pm
    Using The Cryosphere Today website, I just did a comparison of Arctic sea ice @ June 6 2007 against June 6 2010.

    It seems quite clear from this comparison that the 2010 Arctic sea ice concentration appears much higher than it was at this point in 2007 (and higher than June 6 2008). Its just a shame that June 6 2009 was unavailable.

    Try this comparison:

  165. Phil. says:
    June 7, 2010 at 7:08 pm

    I don’t buy it

    So you guys have gone from attacking scientists to attacking PIPS and any other data that won’t show your rotted ice and your rotted ‘science’.

  166. rbateman says:
    June 7, 2010 at 1:16 am
    @fred

    The only reason why the extent was put on the front burner is to demonstrate that these things are cyclic.
    What really takes the cake is not volume or extent of the Arctic, but rather the hard correlation between the Arctic and Antartic Sea Ice. Like this: http://www.robertb.darkhorizons.org/seaice.anomaly.Ant_arctic.jpg
    And before that there was this: http://www.robertb.darkhorizons.org/0857806.jpg
    Just so you know, and can’t say nobody told you so, what you see going on in the Antarctic right now is highly probable to be happening in the Arctic and N. Hemisphere come December. Given the last 2 years of Winter ‘top this’ hopscotch that Nature has been gaming on Planet Earth, it’s a good bet that those of us in the N. Hemisphere will be feeling December a lot more than we will be feeling a melted Arctic in September. And that is IF we manage to escape the regional threat of a Year without a Summer, being 3.5 yrs. into the penalty box and another week of lackluster Solar Activity breathing down the literary pipeline. Rotted crops not included in offer.
    No, I’m not worried about the melt in the Arctic.
    Are you?

    ========================

    Well said and worth re-posting which is what I am doing here.

    Chris
    Norfolk, VA, USA

  167. Amino Acids in Meteorites says:
    June 7, 2010 at 5:07 pm
    R. Gates

    do you know the difference between current data and model forecasting? You seem to have trouble with that.

    Yeah R. Gates, do you understand what data from a SSM/I instrument is ?

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_Sensor_Microwave/Imager

    The Special Sensor Microwave/Imager (SSM/I) is a seven-channel, four-frequency, linearly polarized passive microwave radiometric system. The instrument measures surface/atmospheric microwave brightness temperatures (TBs) at 19.35, 22.235, 37.0 and 85.5 GHz. The four frequencies are sampled in both horizontal and vertical polarizations, except the 22 GHz which is sampled in the vertical only.

    SSM/I gives the sea ice concentration data.

    And do you understand what model forecasting is ?

    http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/full/10.1175/1520-0426(2004)021%3C0944:FVOTPI%3E2.0.CO;2

    “The goal of this study is not to denigrate PIPS, as it is one of the few examples of an ocean forecast system that is actually used operationally. Rather, the broader goal is to illustrate the importance and some of the basic issues involved in assessing the skill of ocean forecast systems.”
    Journal of Atmospheric and Oceanic Technology 2004; 21: 944-957
    Forecast Verification of the Polar Ice Prediction System (PIPS) Sea Ice Concentration Fields
    Michael L. Van Woert and Cheng-Zhi Zou
    NOAA/NESDIS/Office of Research and Applications, Camp Springs, Maryland
    Walter N. Meier
    United States Naval Academy, Annapolis, Maryland
    Philip D. Hovey
    NOAA/NESDIS/Office of Research and Applications, Camp Springs, Maryland
    Ruth H. Preller and Pamela G. Posey
    Naval Research Laboratory, Stennis Space Center, Mississippi


    Sea ice thickness is initialized from the previous forecast, but the ice edge is modified in the following way: if the SSM/I concentration indicates that no ice is present at a location where the model predicted ice, the ice is removed and the temperature of the mixed layer is raised to 1°C above freezing. In contrast, if the SSM/I concentration indicates that ice is present, but the model did not predict ice, the mixed layer temperature is set to freezing and an ice-concentration-dependent ice thickness is added. In particular, if the ice concentration is less than 50%, the ice thickness is set to 0.5 m and if it is greater than 50%, it is set to 1 m. In the event that the model must be reinitialized, it is restarted from climatology as described by Preller and Posey (1989).
    Regions with missing data, such as near the pole, are estimated by optimal interpolation from nearby points, thus providing complete, daily, hemispheric analyses.

    it was found that PIPS correctly made 24-h forecasts of decreasing sea ice concentration 10%–15% of the time (it also correctly forecast increasing sea ice concentration an additional 10%–15% of the time). However, PIPS correctly forecast melt-out conditions <5% of the time, suggesting that there may be deficiencies in the PIPS parameterization of marginal ice zone processes and/or uncertainties in the atmospheric–oceanic fields that force PIPS.

    I hope that clears up any trouble you’ve been having with data vs. model, R. Gates.

  168. rbateman says:
    June 7, 2010 at 7:14 pm

    …..PIOMAS prediction for September?

    I already know what it will be: if JAXA, ROOS, and DMi show larger extent, and Cryosphere Today a higher concentration, in September 2010 than in September 2009 they will call it rotted ice that has decreasing volume and no matter what the Navy PIPS data for thickness says they will say it is wrong with only their climate modelling CICE, and PIOMAS being right. No matter how many ways they have to find to twist the truth around to make it look like Arctic ice is decreasing THEY WILL DO IT!

    Why wait until September to find out what they will say regardless of their predictions now? Their predictions will be with omens and trepidations. September totals will be spun with omens and trepidations. We already know that.

  169. Amino Acids in Meteorites says:
    June 7, 2010 at 6:49 pm
    no wonder some people believe in global warming—they think data itself is a model. nothing is real to them

    =======================

    Exactly!

  170. Anu

    of course you avoid talking about data and revert to talking about forecasts

    par for the course

    will you do it once again? after all they say if you say something three times it becomes true

  171. Good job on this Amino Acids…you have been like labrador locked in on a downed goose throughout this thread.

    On a side note about the USN and the importance of their opinion on the matter:

    Today I was walking along the quartz sand beaches of Virginia Beach….gorgeous negative NAO early summer day. ENE winds bringing in fresh light green Atlantic water.

    In addition….it was an obvious military operation day from the world’s mightiest, scariest, most bad-ass Navy there ever was….

    F-18s flying seaward in formation. Helicopters buzzing up and down the beach. An aircraft carrier moving seaward on the horizon…..

    And then….the only unrecognizable one: Escorted by a helicopter in the distance, a COLUMN OF SPRAY (as high as the relief of the aircraft carrier)….which would be approaching 24 stories high.

    I watched it for 30 minutes as it very, VERY slowly moved out on the horizon, the helicopter hovering along its path, presumably to keep watercraft and aircraft from getting too close to it.

    I have seen hovercraft before and it is usually visible (and very loud) even with the spray.

    There was no craft whatsoever visible.

    This was just a continuous curtain, a wall of spray 75 meters high…..that slowly meandered out into the Atlantic….and then came back.

    Another day in the life of the US Navy, I guess. Spectacular to view, no doubt.

    And, SINCE IT IS LIFE OR DEATH FOR THEM, what is important to them… (including the PIPS 2.0 model) is important to me.

    Chris
    Norfolk, VA, USA

  172. Anu

    will you be the one that provides the proof that the Navy stopped using PIPS to determine thickness of ice?

    or are you going to stay on the forecast merry-go-round?

  173. Anu says:
    June 6, 2010 at 11:05 pm

    ===============================

    Busted. You caught me with all my animal imagery in my writings.

    :)

    Chris
    Norfolk, VA, USA

  174. savethesharks says:
    June 7, 2010 at 8:15 pm

    Good job on this Amino Acids,/i>

    Thanks. But honestly it’s not so hard. I just want the proof about what they’re saying about the current thickness data. They continue to refer back to when forecast made by PIPS were found wanting. They go, without fail, to talk of forecasting. I simply want them to get on the real topic of this post which is current data and how it could possibly be used to make a forecast of summer melt minimum.

    I can see on the Navy web site that PIPS 2.0 is still used for very short term data. But they go on and on about how it is not used in long term forecasting. They continue with the implication, that they want the reader to infer, that the Navy no longer uses PIPS 2.0 for current thickness. I simply want their proof for what they are saying. And until now they still have not done it. But I know they haven’t done it because they can’t. So until they admit that the current Navy Arctic ice thickness data is from PIPS 2.0 I guess I will have to continue to ask for it to show what global warming believers are really all about.

    Hark, do I hear them saying something about CICE and PIOMAS already?

  175. Amino Acids in Meteorites says:
    June 7, 2010 at 7:30 pm
    Phil. says:
    June 7, 2010 at 7:08 pm

    I don’t buy it

    So you guys have gone from attacking scientists to attacking PIPS and any other data that won’t show your rotted ice and your rotted ‘science’.

    I’m not ‘attacking’ anything I’m pointing out that the predicted thick ice doesn’t match with the observations, comparisons like that are a part of real science.

  176. Anu

    you might be happy to know that I agree with you that PIPS forecasting is poor

    look at the PIPS 2.0 model forecast compared the the PIPS 2.0 data from SSM/I:

    http://www7320.nrlssc.navy.mil/pips2/archive/retrievepic.html?filetype=Concentration&year=2010&month=6&day=6

    The image on the left was PIPS 2.0 forecast for 6/6/2010 made on 6/5/2010, just one day earlier. You are right Anu, it’s poor. The actual data show more concentration of ice than the forecast. :-)

  177. Amino Acids in Meteorites says:
    June 7, 2010 at 7:04 pm
    R. Gates

    you still have not provided proof that the Navy has stopped using PIPS 2.0 in the ice thickness measurements. It is apparent you never will because you would have done so by now to save yourself this repeated embarrassment. The fact is is you made that up. The fact is is you don’t know what you are doing. The fact is you and your ilk are desperate. You are losing and you know it. Nothing is saving you.

    __________

    I’ve provided these before, and I hesitate to do so again, but the especially nasty tone you’re taking leads me to once more give these links. One thing to keep in mind, the Navy (and military in general) really tries to hide what they know and how they know it when it comes to strategic signficance. But if you read all of these links in detail, I think a pretty clear picture begins to emerge that PIPS 2.0, that is available to the public (from a very old website) is no longer the state of the art tool used by the Navy. You never let your enemies know how much you know. The Navy quite clearly distinguishes the kinds of data released for research and scientific purposes and that which may be used for daily operational military uses. PIPS 2.0 would not be available to the public if it had any real value (i.e. if it could help potential enemy nations navigate their way through the Arctic). I would think even a 5 year old could grasp that.

    Anyway, here are many links that weave the story quite well on how PIPS 2.0 evolved into PIPS 3.0 which became G-HYCOM and who knows what it may really be called now. But the bottom line is that PIPS 2.0 is the only public face of what the Navy is going to let you and I and potential enemies of the U.S. know. All of these documents are unclassified but they provide you glimpses of how much better the data is that the Navy uses for true operational use then what they will release. If you expect the Navy to come out and say, “Oh, yeah, PIPS 2.0 is just our public face and we know it’s crap…here’s what we really have…” Well, it ain’t gonna happen… You’ve got to read between the lines a bit if want to get some notion of what the Navy (and military in general) are really up to. Note: Some of these are actual Powerpoint presentations and will require that software to view:

    http://www.hycom.org/attachments/101_F.Bub.pdf

    http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA489794&Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.pdf

    http://research.iarc.uaf.edu/presentations/ASM_08/presentations/CICE_ASM.pdf

    http://www.godae.org/CSS-P18.html

    http://www.earthsystemmodeling.org/presentations/pres_0507_rickallard.ppt

    http://www7320.nrlssc.navy.mil/global_ncom/arc.html

    http://www7320.nrlssc.navy.mil/pubs/2006/labstracts_sep_2006.pdf

    http://www.star.nesdis.noaa.gov/star/documents/2009Ice/Day1/KruseNICSymposium_day1.pdf

  178. Phil

    was that the PIPS forecast or the real data you compared JAXA to?

  179. Amino Acids in Meteorites says: The image on the left was PIPS 2.0 forecast for 6/6/2010 made on 6/5/2010, just one day earlier. You are right Anu, it’s poor. The actual data show more concentration of ice than the forecast. :-)

    ================================

    Well, in terms of international security, better funding to make a better model, is in order then.

    Would rather my tax dollars pay for THIS… than to fatten Michael Mann’s or Gavin Scmidts’ checking account….thats for damn sure.

    Chris
    Norfolk, VA, USA

  180. Amino Acids in Meteorites says:
    June 7, 2010 at 4:24 pm

    I used the ice age data from C. Fowler and J. Maslanik (see GRL paper by Maslanik et al. 2007 for more information on the data product). For the values I stated in my post, I used data from 1984 onwards so that the ice had aged at least 5 years (tracking begins in 1979). But I could have also provided percentages from 1979 onwards, it doesn’t make a difference.

  181. Phil

    As you can see the trolls have come out of the woodwork lately for Steven Goddard in his Arctic ice posts. If you really were just making a simple observation and not trying to fault find with him then please accept my apologies. I may have spoken to quickly.

  182. julienne:
    June 7, 2010 at 9:33 pm

    But 20% MYI ice loss was the average?

  183. stevengoddard says:
    June 7, 2010 at 4:20 pm

    Julienne ,

    This video makes it clear where PIPS thinks the thick ice came from, in late summer 2007.
    ———–
    Steve, thanks for posting the video. I am however more inclined to trust the ICESat derived thickness values than the PIPS2.0 model results. So in terms of actual ice thickness values, it looks to me that PIPS2.0 is overestimating the ice thickness.

    For the record, I am not convinced that the PIOMAS results showing less ice volume today than a couple of years ago are correct. Since there was more survival of first-year ice the last 2 summers it would make sense that the overall thickness (and hence volume) is higher today than in May of 2008 for example. Even so, the Arctic Ocean saw more depletion of the oldest ice types out of the Arctic Basin this past winter (export out of Fram Strait was normal), so it is likely that the ice volume (and hence ice thickness) remain anomalously low.

  184. R. Gates

    reading between the lines is a relative undertaking. So you now admit that you had no real proof what you are saying.

  185. Amino,

    You said “I agree with you that PIPS forecasting is poor… look at the PIPS 2.0 model forecast compared the the PIPS 2.0 data from SSM/I”

    You’ve missed the comment on the PIPS archive that I mentioned earlier: “… the SSM/I plots generally have significant variations from actual conditions.”

    You also said “Tom P has a penchant for ignoring what’s happened in Arctic ice since 2007.”

    Again, you’ve missed my earlier comments: “Here are the figures after 2007. I calculate the minimum ice volume for 2008 was 22% below the 2007 value, in excellent agreement with Posey’s published values based on PIPS 2.0. The corresponding average thickness dropped by 32%. In 2009 the minimum volume was 6% lower than 2007, with the thickness down 22%.”

    You may find it helps to read the previously posted comments before adding your own.

  186. R. Gates

    so you are continuing to insist Arctic ice volume is less now than it was in 2008 and 2009? That there has been no recovery in Arctic ice volume in the last 2 3/4 years since the minimum of 2007? That Arctic ice though it has increased in extent and concentration that somehow equates to less volume?

  187. stevengoddard says:
    June 7, 2010 at 3:08 pm

    Julienne ,

    Thanks for the information. Are you aware of any better data set than PIPS 2 which is available with daily ice thickness numbers?

    Also, do you have any reason to believe that PIPS 2 numbers are (relatively) inconsistent from year to year? I understand that the absolute thicknesses may not be precise.

    ________________
    Steve, I don’t off-hand. Of course PIOMAS would be computing daily ice thickness numbers, but you’re not too keen on that model ;)

    Honestly I haven’t looked into the detail of the PIPS2.0 model, nor have I worked with the model or done any comparisons with it to real data. I simply know what folks at NIC think about the model, which isn’t great. I would assume that some comparison with real data was made during development of the model and there must have been some “reasonable” performance of the model. But just looking at the thickness data during the time when ICESat was in operation or comparing it with ERS1/2 radar altimeter data, it does appear that the absolute values are off. Certainly it would be worth comparing the spatial patterns of the thickness distributions from PIPS2.0 and the ICESat and ERS1/2 retrievals. That would at least give you some confidence in how well the evolution of the thickness is modeled.

  188. Amino Acids in Meteorites says:
    June 7, 2010 at 9:00 pm
    Anu

    you might be happy to know that I agree with you that PIPS forecasting is poor

    look at the PIPS 2.0 model forecast compared the the PIPS 2.0 data from SSM/I:

    http://www7320.nrlssc.navy.mil/pips2/archive/retrievepic.html?filetype=Concentration&year=2010&month=6&day=6

    The image on the left was PIPS 2.0 forecast for 6/6/2010 made on 6/5/2010, just one day earlier. You are right Anu, it’s poor.

    Yes, the agreement is really not that good. It helps that they use tiny images, so any errors are minimized.
    The forecast is especially poor, once you see the starting data for 6/5/10:

    http://www7320.nrlssc.navy.mil/pips2/archive/retrievepic.html?filetype=Concentration&year=2010&month=6&day=5

    That would be the measured, starting ice concentration data on the right, the input to their model. I don’t know why their simple model outputs all those oranges, yellows and greens.

    Luckily, their forecasts for Arctic sea ice concentration aren’t that important, since every day the measurement is updated:

    This is what the measurement looks at higher resolution (1296 x 1296 pixels) – if their model used such resolutions, it would probably perform even worse – look at all the details they would have to predict each day.
    A thumbnail image (354 x 354) that includes the Northern Hemisphere down to 40° N does not leave many pixels for the Arctic data/forecast. What is that, about 100 x 100 of data pixels ?

    However, the sea ice thickness is not measured. It is derived by their model calculations. So with this aspect of Arctic sea ice, their model accuracy becomes very important.
    What you seem to be unable to grasp is that the input data, sea ice concentration, is a 2D measurement – how much ice (0% to 100%) is in a measured data cell. This 2D data must then be transformed into a 3D guess of ice thickness, by the same model which you admit is a poor model of what happens to the very data they measure 24 hours later.

    I’m sure R. Gates understands :-)
    You should probably pretend you didn’t read this, and go off to the next thread.

    The actual data show more concentration of ice than the forecast. :-)
    Imagine that – the Navy model being so wrong. How many lives were lost by submarines expecting 45% open water, and finding an unbroken ceiling of thick ice ? Isn’t that the argument on this thread, that the Navy has lives riding on their “Arctic sea ice thickness data”, so it must be good ?
    The horror…
    I bet all those deaths are classified, so “the Enemy” doesn’t know where the Arctic sea ice really is.

    savethesharks should be howling mad – all those submarines endangered like that.

  189. Just The Facts said June 7, 2010 at 1:43 pm

    “So what do you find more compelling, verifiable facts, or “many good papers” that seem to contradict the facts?”

    But you have just posted images from two years there, what does that show. The scientists arguement is that compared to the longer trend the Antarctic gains ice more rapidly than it used to do, mainly in the Roos sea. This is nothing to do with maximum extent or a comparison of one year to another. A better graph would be this one

    you can see the rapid rise in both 2008 and 2009 above the mean even though that has no correlation with the maxima. This year is following the same path as well and although I haven’t got the graph showing 2007 I bet that was positive too. So your comparison gives no conflict on those papers.

    Andy

  190. rbateman said June 7, 2010 at 1:16 am

    “What really takes the cake is not volume or extent of the Arctic, but rather the hard correlation between the Arctic and Antartic Sea Ice. Like this: http://www.robertb.darkhorizons.org/seaice.anomaly.Ant_arctic.jpg

    Just so you know, and can’t say nobody told you so, what you see going on in the Antarctic right now is highly probable to be happening in the Arctic and N. Hemisphere come December. Given the last 2 years of Winter ‘top this’ hopscotch that Nature has been gaming on Planet Earth, it’s a good bet that those of us in the N. Hemisphere will be feeling December a lot more than we will be feeling a melted Arctic in September. ”

    Why is what is going on now in Antarctica likely to be happening in the Arctic this December, apart from at the moment the anomaly of one roughyl matches the size, but not sign, of the other? Take last year for example, there was a positive anomaly in the Anctarctic and a negative one in the Arctic, but December 2009 was very warm in the Arctic basin so ice extent was low.

    As mentioned by Steve Goddard in relation to the Arctic and myself in relation to the Antarctic, the value of ice cover now is not a good way of determining the maxima or minima values for both regions. It’s nice to paint a humanistic ying yang picture up, but there is no correlation on what the Arctic and Antarctic do in any one year that shows any connection whatsoever.

    Andy

  191. BTW interesting discussion/flame war going on at digg.com over “Arctic Sea Ice at Lowest Point in Thousands of Years” – feel free.

  192. Anu, it might be “dropping like a rock” right now but going by the link you provided it did something quite similar at about the same time last year (just a fraction earlier) and then recovered shortly thereafter.

    But then you probably didnt notice that did you?

  193. Anu says:
    June 6, 2010 at 11:05 pm

    savethesharks says:
    June 6, 2010 at 10:18 pm

    The funny thing is…that the gauntlet has been thrown down…but nobody really cares to be there to pick it up.

    Are you speaking for all sharkmen, or just yourself ?

    Read: There IS no challenge.

    Conclusion : Based on current ice thickness, we should expect September extent/area to come in near the top of the JAXA rankings (near 2003 and 2006.)
    – Steven Goddard

    Sounds like a prediction to me, sts.
    But my prediction is better.

    If anybody involved in these chest-thumping contests would like to bet on the matter of 2009 vs. 2010, the current odds are about 45% that 2010 will be icier than 2009, at https://www.intrade.com

  194. I did a quick google search and found the following article dating 02/03/2010 on the US Navy’s homepage:

    http://www.navy.mil/search/display.asp?story_id=51054

    (Oceanographer and Navigator of the Navy and TFCC Director Rear Adm. David) Titley said the rate of global warming has not slowed, and the long term trend is rising. The Arctic is among the areas seeing the greatest impact from climate change, with sea ice coverage during summer months steadily diminishing, and the ice is thinner when the Arctic Ocean freezes again in the winter.

    Titley said the ice volume has declined and is not coming back.

    I don’t know which model Titley relies on but I guess he knows what he is talking about.

  195. In comparison to Steve, Ron Lindsay’s a polar scientist who probably can calculate ice volumes. He released his latest predictions for 2010 a few days ago:

    http://psc.apl.washington.edu/lindsay/prediction.html#2010predictions

    Lindsay has found the best correlation, with an R^2 of 0.79, with September minimum extent to be the fraction of open water or ice less than 1 m thick, so-called G1.0m. Last year the G1.0m from May proved very accurate. This year his May prediction is for a minimum extent of 4.44 +/- 0.39 million sq. km, a little lower than the 2008 value.

    Steve prognosticates a value comparable to 2003 (6.05 million sq. km) or 2006 (5.91 million sq. km). We’ll know in less than 3 months who is closer.

  196. Anu

    let’s get to the real issue. You and others are trying to convince people that ice has decreased in volume, or is ‘rotted’, since 2008 even though it has increased in extent and concentration. You are using all sorts of arguments to do this. But none of them work. I don’t think any of you really believe them either.

    Some of you are trying to say what ice is doing now doesn’t matter but only the long term matters. But obviously you don’t believe that either because there is more than one blog talking about ice total data from today. Many are obsessing over every little thing that Arctic ice is doing. This shows that they aren’t thinking about long term but they are thinking about the moment happening now.

    All of the arguments are in these type of Arctic ice threads are happening because people in your camp are trying to convince others that there is no recovery happening in Arctic ice since the minimum in 2007. But anyone that looks at the graphs will see that there has been.

    I think all of you are nervous. You can see ‘ice free’ Arctic predictions are not happening. And you can see ice is increasing instead. So all of you you are whistling past the graveyard. I think all of you know the ice isn’t rotted. So you spend a lot of time trying to convince people it is.

  197. rogerkni, how exactly does this intrade work. I would like to bet 50 euros if possible. This is a good time now with the alarmists thinking 2010 will break all the records. It would not surprise me if 2010 stays a lot above 2009. Are the odds good?

  198. Amino Acids in Meteorites says:
    June 7, 2010 at 9:54 pm
    R. Gates

    so you are continuing to insist Arctic ice volume is less now than it was in 2008 and 2009? That there has been no recovery in Arctic ice volume in the last 2 3/4 years since the minimum of 2007? That Arctic ice though it has increased in extent and concentration that somehow equates to less volume?

    _____________

    I make no such claim. I am simply saying that Steve’s +25% increase statement has no basis in actual measured real ice thickness and can’t be trusted if it is based on the PIPS 2.0 model data. If I had to make a guess, I would probably favor the PIOMAS model projections over PIPS 2.0, as it is tied into the CICE model and I think therefore far more likely to be accurate. I’ve heard mention by one other poster here that NIC doesn’t really trust the PIPS 2.0 data, and it sounds like she has some direct knowledge of that. Finally, as I ‘ve alluded to, I would strongly suspect that the Navy (as they had shown with their previously classified submarine measured ice thickness data) has far more accurate data than they are releasing to the public, and are simply content to let the research community use the PIPS 2.0 model (which is pretty much useless) and can be considered as a “downs scaled” product and not what the Navy uses for near real time navigation of the Arctic. I think the links I’ve given in my last post shows some glimpses of the much better information that that newer CICE g-ncom models can give, and I have confidence that is what the Navy uses on a daily basis, though their public face stays with their 2003 website (must have Internet Explorer 4.0 or better!) of PIPS 2.0.

  199. Amino Acids in Meteorites says:
    June 8, 2010 at 6:31 am

    I suppose it depends on what your definition of recovery means. While failing to set a new record minimum, 2008 saw the largest decline of ice extent over a single melt season (defined as the difference in ice extent between March and September) recorded in the satellite era of 10.58 million km2. The reason 2008 had a greater total seasonal ice loss than in 2007 is that the melt season started out with greater ice extent than 2007. Had there been less ice at the beginning of the melt season, 2008 may have broken the record seasonal minimum of September 2007, despite less favorable atmospheric forcings, simply because so much of the spring ice pack consisted of first-year ice. In 2009, the total ice loss between March and September was 9.8 million km2, third largest behind 2007 and 2008.

    So I suppose you could argue there was some recovery last summer, but the year-to-year fluctuations are not all that important, it is the trend that is of interest. It may or may not be noteworthy that May 2010 saw the fastest rate of ice loss during the satellite record. Since you had late ice growth in the Bering, you would expect rapid decline as that ice melted out so perhaps the fast rate of decline last month doesn’t say too much about the overall “health” of the ice pack. Summer circulation is the key wild card in defining the end of summer ice extent so we’ll just have to wait and see. If you have a summer circulation pattern such as seen in 1996, then some recovery would likely happen. But if this summer is anything like the last 3 summers, 2010 will continue the pattern of anomalously low September sea ice extents.

  200. Günther Kirschbaum says:
    June 8, 2010 at 6:46 am

    rogerkni, how exactly does this intrade work. I would like to bet 50 euros if possible. This is a good time now with the alarmists thinking 2010 will break all the records. It would not surprise me if 2010 stays a lot above 2009. Are the odds good?

    I can’t give all the details of how to register with the site and how to place bets on the various contracts there (several hundred, mostly on finance, politics, sports, and current events). Going to the https://www.intrade.com site and printing out the various help files there on those topics is necessary. It’ll take at least an hour to print and read them.

    You should also print out samples of the full details of each bet (click on the purple name of the bet first). This will contain a chart showing the fluctuation in the odds over time, plus the full “order book” (in cases where it is too large to show up on the betting screen). The order book contains the bids of potential bettors — how many “contracts” they are willing to buy (or sell) and at what price.

    Money can be sent to ones account either by mailing a personal check ($1 postage to Dublin) or by inter-bank transfer, which costs more, looks complicated, and requires a visit to ones bank.

    I encourage betting on these matters, because, for one thing, it forces people to tone down their rhetoric if they aren’t willing to make bets supporting their claims, which they often aren’t. It thereby forces people to think harder about what they are saying. This in turn promotes civility and thoughtfulness, at least a bit.

    Below this paragraph is a description I posted a few weeks ago on a different thread in response to another commenter asking about the Arctic ice bet. But please note that there are about ten other climate-related bets available. For diversification, bets should be spread among them. Also, the most sensible bets to make are the longer-term ones, as these relate more to climate than weather. However, nearly all the betting action is on the near-term bets.
    =======================

    You can read the terms (after navigating via “Climate and Weather” to “Arctic Ice Extent”) by clicking on the purple heading line “MIN.ARCTIC.ICE:2010>2009″, which takes you here:

    https://www.intrade.com/jsp/intrade/common/c_cd.jsp?conDetailID=720038&z=1275555182467

    Then click on “Contract Specific Rules”, which pops up the following text box:

    This contract will settle (expire) at 100 ($10.00) if the minimum Arctic ice extent for 2010 is greater than that of 2009.
    The contract will settle (expire) at 0 ($0.00) if the minimum Arctic ice extent for 2010 is not greater than that of 2009.
    This market will be expired on 31st October 2010. Expiry will be based on the minimum Arctic ice extent figure recorded using the IARC-JAXA Information System. Readings are taken on a daily basis and smoothed with a five-day moving average. These daily readings are published on a data table HERE.
    (Please be aware that the most recent data on this table may change once the five-day moving average is fully applied. There may also be occasional corrections made to daily figures published on the table in the weeks following initial publication.)
    The smallest recorded daily reading in the table on 31st October 2010 will be considered the minimum Arctic ice extent for 2010. This will be compared with the lowest recorded value for 2009 to determine contract expiry. (Please note the minimum Arctic ice extent is referred to on the IARC-JAXA Information System website as “sea ice extent.)
    For reference purposes the minimum Arctic ice extent for 2009 was 5,249,844 square kilometres (recorded on 13th September). The minimum Arctic ice extent for 2010 must be greater than this figure for the contract to expire at 100.
    Due to the nature of this contract please also see Contract Rule 1.7 Unforeseen Circumstances.
    The Exchange reserves the right to invoke Contract Rule 1.8 (Time Protection) if deemed appropriate.
    Any changes to the result after the contract has expired will not be taken into account – Exchange Rule 1.4
    Please contact the exchange by emailing help@intrade.com if you have any questions or uncertainty regarding this contract or interpretation of these contract specific rules, related exchange news articles or Exchange Rules before you place a trade.

    Each “contract” is worth $10. If someone is “asking” 45 for a contract, it means 45%, so it costs $4.50, and ten of them cost $45.

    The Arctic ice contract opened around May 10 at 50, fell to 35, climbed to 44, fell to 40, and is now being offered at about 45. (The chart of the price history of contracts is displayed when the purple bet-name is clicked, as mentioned above.) I’ve bet over $100 on this year’s Arctic being icier than last year’s.

    The odds at Intrade aren’t set by the organization itself, which is a mere marketplace where individual bettors posts bids and offers (sell-short bids, in effect) on certain propositions, similar to bids and offers placed on the stock market. (I.e., the bettor specifies the price level and quantity of his bid/offer.) If a bid or offer is tempting enough to another bettor, he “covers” it, and the price at which he does so establishes the latest odds.

    For instance, on the Greater Arctic Ice This Sept.? proposition, I currently have [had] a bid at 40% for five $10 “contracts.” (All contracts are for $10.) I had to post a margin of $20 (40% * 5 * $10 = 20). If someone wants to take my bet at those odds, he posts a “sell” order at 40 for 5 and posts margin of $30 (60% * 5 * $10 = 30). In October Intrade settles the bet one way or the other and places $50 in the winner’s account. That’s one nice thing about the site — the feeling that I’m punishing the other side (not a bookie).

    Another nice thing is that if you change your mind on a bet you can sell it (or try to) at a partial loss before it goes totally bad. For instance, I could place a sell offer on my position at 30 and lose only a quarter ($5) of my bet ($20). You don’t have to put up extra cash to hedge yourself by buying a bet on the other side, the way you have to with a bookie. (Of course, Intrade charges commissions, but they aren’t onerous.)

  201. Amino Acids in Meteorites says:
    June 7, 2010 at 9:21 pm
    Phil

    was that the PIPS forecast or the real data you compared JAXA to?

    Ask Steve, it was the data he put up I just compared the results to the ice coverage observations. Whichever dataset they were from they showed thick ice forming in improbable places, bear in mind that the predictions that are updated wrt observations are the coverage not the thickness.

  202. On the Undeath Spiral thread, Tom P wrote (technical details omitted and emphasis added below),
    “As I mentioned, your calculations are not giving the volume of the ice, as they do not take into account the ice concentration. You calculate:
    VolumeGoddard = Sum(PixelArea x PixelThickness)
    However, such numbers do not give good agreement with the Navy’s published volumes – in fact giving a negative correlation of -0.6.

    I’ve had a chance now to derive the correct numbers, that is:
    VolumePIPS = Sum(PixelArea x PixelThickness x PixelConcentration)
    This did not need sophisticated software on a supercomputer, but free software, ImageJ, on my laptop, so anyone should be able to do these calculations.

    The method is straightforward
    ….
    Comparing my values to published values at http://www.nrl.navy.mil/content_images/09_Ocean_Posey.pdf
    gives a correlation coefficient of 0.99999, so I’m pretty confident that this is how the PIPS volumes should be calculated.

    These PIPS volumes give rather a different history to the arctic ice volume than you present. In fact both the 2008 and 2009 minimums had less volume than 2007. Hardly a recovery.

    I hope this indicates the importance of understanding the numbers you are calculating before leaping to the conclusions that PIPS undermines the PIOMAS analysis and shows a multiyear recovery in ice volumes.”

    This raises a fundamental point. Setting aside the question of whether PIPS accurately models Arctic ice, does Steve’s method accurately derive PIPS numbers from images on the PIPS website?

    That is, has the PIPS-interpretation method at the heart of all these posts been validated against published PIPS numerical results? Or does it overlook ice concentration and thus negatively correlate with PIPS actual volume numbers, as Tom P reports?

  203. As an interesting exercise, try downloading the data file for the IARC-JAXA sea ice graph and then plot only 2007, 2009 and 2010 YTD.

    Most of the damage during the 2007 summer ice minimum occurred later in the year. In fact 2007 and 2009 were very similar at this stage but diverged sharply after July but then were back to even by the end of October.

    I think as many have posted previously on this thread we will have a much clearer picture in 6-8 weeks time as to where were headed this year.

  204. Julienne says:
    June 8, 2010 at 8:15 am

    The reason 2008 had a greater total seasonal ice loss than in 2007 is that the melt season started out with greater ice extent than 2007.

    Wouldn’t that 2008 ice be first year ice which would melt quickest? It appears to have grown quickly from ~January 18, 08 to ~March 10, 08. Or do I have that wrong?

  205. AndyW says: June 7, 2010 at 10:30 pm

    “But you have just posted images from two years there, what does that show.”

    It shows that jeff brown’s statement that, “Strong winds push the ice away from the coast in the Ross Sea, allowing new ice formation in the open water areas. The only place that shows strong decreases in Antarctic sea ice is the Bellinghausen/Admudsen Seas where there has been a strong warming signal. ” appears inaccurate because,
    as compared to two years ago, the largest increase in sea ice area and concentration appears to have occurred in the Bellingshausen/Amundsen Seas (where there’s supposed to be a strong warming signal) whereas sea ice area seems to shrunk a little in the Ross Sea (where strong winds are supposed to be facilitating the creation of additional sea ice). Thus the reason for the current very high Antarctic Sea Ice Extent;

    and Area:

    appears to be due to factors other than what jeff brown cited, possibly that it’s getting colder…

    “This is nothing to do with maximum extent or a comparison of one year to another. A better graph would be this one

    you can see the rapid rise in both 2008 and 2009 above the mean even though that has no correlation with the maxima. This year is following the same path as well and although I haven’t got the graph showing 2007 I bet that was positive too. So your comparison gives no conflict on those papers.”

    The facts are that sea ice area has been increasing more rapidly in recent years, and that the Ozone hole/Ross Sea ice explanation does not appear to be supported by the current data. The logical explanation is that something else is probably causing the increase in Antarctic sea ice area and extent, possibly that it’s getting colder…

    Are you open to the possibility that the current very high Antarctic sea ice extent and area might not be the result of the hypothesized Ozone hole/Ross Sea ice process?

  206. julienne says:
    June 7, 2010 at 9:33 pm

    I used data from 1984 onwards so that the ice had aged at least 5 years (tracking begins in 1979). But I could have also provided percentages from 1979 onwards, it doesn’t make a difference.

    I was looking at this from your comment above:

    When you look at survival rates of FYI versus MYI during summer you find that on average 60% of the FYI melts out and 20% of the MYI.

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/06/06/wuwt-arctic-sea-ice-news-8/#comment-404796

    So it would seem to make a difference. Or do those percentages hold true every year, even in 2008 when it appears much of the rapid loss you pointed out was FYI and not MYI.

    But again, am I wrong in that?

  207. Julienne says:
    June 8, 2010 at 8:15 am

    In 2009, the total ice loss between March and September was 9.8 million km2, third largest behind 2007 and 2008.

    Again, wouldn’t that be because of large extent of FYI which melts quickest?

  208. Julienne says:
    June 8, 2010 at 8:15 am

    Had there been less ice at the beginning of the melt season, 2008 may have broken the record seasonal minimum of September 2007

    If there had been less then I could see how you could say there is no recovery taking place. But there wasn’t. So isn’t that an indication of recovery taking place?

  209. New Numbers out, since end of May
    El Nino ratings (ONI went down from 1.2 to 0.8 for March-April-May)

    http://www.cpc.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/ensostuff/ensoyears.shtml

    Arctic Ocean air temp (uah: overseen by Dr Roy Spencer) (last 5 months’ anomaly: + 3.2 December, 1.6, 2.92, 2.53, 2.68 degrees C.) http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/t2lt/uahncdc.lt

    And PIOMAS updates on 05-30 (but will likely have another long Hiatus soon: they are close to dropping off the bottom of their chart — again )http://psc.apl.washington.edu/ArcticSeaiceVolume/images/BPIOMASIceVolumeAnomalyCurrent.png
    PS: Lindsay & Zhang plug their Reasoning into PIOMAS, which spits out maps. Being Professional does not make Lindsay Perfect — Don’t forget they both are biased to predict that “every year AGW cuts the Ice down a little bit” e.g. a tenth the 2007 melt -off that I think is proportional to the El Nino strength & thus will be 4000 x 1.8/1.1 = Zero sea-ice left.

    Just found where SUBMARINE ICE DRAFTS are compared to Piomas to (never scrolled down the page before) :

    http://psc.apl.washington.edu/zhang/IDAO/retro.html#Satellite_ice

    – – –
    Steve, try comparing your model to the Past.
    Does your model show the great 2007 Melt-off ?
    The thicker Ice in Volcano years (e.g. the late 1960s) ?
    The low ice every 60 years as in the 1890s (when Amundsen made the North-West Passage), 1950s, near 2010 … ?

    Piomas does: either scroll even further down that page Or go to: http://psc.apl.washington.edu/zhang/IDAO/retro.html#NAO
    … even though AGWers would prefer it didn’t.

  210. I suppose that from reading the reasons given by some of how there is no recovery taking place some may come to the conclusion there is no recovery since the minimum of 2007. But I think everyone can agree there is no ‘death spiral’ taking place in Arctic ice.

    Also, from looking at the data, and images, of Arctic ice and comparing them year by year it’s hard to come to the conclusion there is no recovery taking place. Any explanation that says no recovery is happening after looking at those data and images sounds like just ‘so many words’—after all, you can make data say anything.

    But again, I can see from these explanations how someone may say there is no recovery happening—especially if that’s the conclusion they’d like to come to.

  211. Charles Wilson says:
    June 8, 2010 at 4:52 pm

    Does your model show the great 2007 Melt-off ?

    2007 was a great melt? Or were other factors involved? I think there was wind and currents involved.

  212. Amino writes,
    “But I think everyone can agree there is no ‘death spiral’ taking place in Arctic ice.”

    If you listen only to people who agree with you, then it must seem that everyone can agree. On the other hand if you read or listen to the real Arctic research, you’ll find that quite a few of the people who know the Arctic system best believe that it’s wobbling toward seasonally (almost) ice-free conditions, within the next few decades.

  213. Gneiss says:
    June 8, 2010 at 6:00 pm

    if you read or listen to the real Arctic research, you’ll find that quite a few of the people who know the Arctic system best believe that it’s wobbling toward seasonally (almost) ice-free conditions, within the next few decades.

    Wouldn’t they have said so toward the end of previous arctic warming cycles?

    PS: How much is due to soot?

  214. A simple linear trend – which all the Hansen or his ilk ever project – will always either go to zero or go towards massive catastrophic warming. Regardless of what the real world is doing on a 60 year 1/2 of one degree cycle added to a 800 year cycle 1 degree cycle.

    Then put both of those cyclic trends on a 8000 year linear decline …. And you get “Ice Age.” The death of billions.

  215. Just The Facts said June 8, 2010 at 4:41 pm

    _____

    “It shows that jeff brown’s statement that, “Strong winds push the ice away from the coast in the Ross Sea, allowing new ice formation in the open water areas. The only place that shows strong decreases in Antarctic sea ice is the Bellinghausen/Admudsen Seas where there has been a strong warming signal. ” appears inaccurate because,
    as compared to two years ago, the largest increase in sea ice area and concentration appears to have occurred in the Bellingshausen/Amundsen Seas (where there’s supposed to be a strong warming signal) whereas sea ice area seems to shrunk a little in the Ross Sea (where strong winds are supposed to be facilitating the creation of additional sea ice). Thus the reason for the current very high Antarctic Sea Ice Extent”

    No the argument for this is a long term trend in those areas, you can have fluctuations within that time and the theory is still valid ( or not, but you’d have to show it to be not, and to show it to be not then you’d need more than 2 years data).

    Just the Facts said-
    “The facts are that sea ice area has been increasing more rapidly in recent years, and that the Ozone hole/Ross Sea ice explanation does not appear to be supported by the current data. The logical explanation is that something else is probably causing the increase in Antarctic sea ice area and extent, possibly that it’s getting colder…

    Are you open to the possibility that the current very high Antarctic sea ice extent and area might not be the result of the hypothesized Ozone hole/Ross Sea ice process?”

    Not if it is down to the Antarctic getting colder which you are suggesting. If it was getting colder then the rate of decline of ice extent from the maximum would be slowed, which it is not, or else you would have to say it is getting colder part of the year only, which I would not say is likely. Also I’d expect the maxima to get greater if it was colder but they tend to fluctuate.

    Until someone comes up with a better explanation I am happy with it.

    Andy

  216. Amino Acids in Meteorites said June 8, 2010 at 5:01 pm

    “I suppose that from reading the reasons given by some of how there is no recovery taking place some may come to the conclusion there is no recovery since the minimum of 2007. But I think everyone can agree there is no ‘death spiral’ taking place in Arctic ice. Also, from looking at the data, and images, of Arctic ice and comparing them year by year it’s hard to come to the conclusion there is no recovery taking place. Any explanation that says no recovery is happening after looking at those data and images sounds like just ‘so many words’—after all, you can make data say anything.But again, I can see from these explanations how someone may say there is no recovery happening—especially if that’s the conclusion they’d like to come to.”

    It’s too early yet to say if it is a recovery or actually a rebound from 2007.

    Andy

  217. As a further exercise I looked at daily fluctuations in the IARC-JAXA data for the period 2003-2010.

    In particular I compared the years 2003, 2007, 2009 and 2010. It seems to show that the greatest variation in ice loss on a 30 day moving average occurs consistently during July. Peak ice loss also appears to occur within this period.

    By August, the differences in terms of ice loss for the 4 years mentioned above are far less pronounced. You see this in particular in 2007, where the highest discrepancy is during July.

    Incidentally, whilst the 30 day moving average for this year had shown a sharp decline in volume loss per day during the month of May this trend appears to have halted and the degree of ice loss per day is actually decrease by a small amount.

    When I get more time, I’ll chart the other years from 2003 to 2010 and see if the trends I’ve seen for the 4 years I looked hold.

  218. AndyW

    For you it’s too early. But anyone that looks at the graphs will see recovery. You can stay they way you are. It’s ok. I would suppose there could be even more growth over the next three years, with the prediction of an ice free Arctic in 2013 shown wrong because Arctic ice had been in a growing trend every year since the minimum in 2007, and some people will still say it is too soon to say there has been recovery.

  219. Amino Acid in Meterorites,

    If you look at the downward trend for the last 30 years then a recovery would be this trend reversing, or starting to reverse, but considering 2007 was an exceptional year we have to go past the rebound from that low point to get to a point where we can then say if the trend is still down or there is a recovery. If the summer minima is, as suggested by Anthony and Steve, about 500 000 km ^2 more than last year we will be at that point and can see which way it goes. We should know better by 2015 or so. One thing for sure is there will be no ice free Arctic by 2013 I agree.

    Andy

  220. stevengoddard says:
    June 8, 2010 at 1:52 pm

    Julienne

    Thanks much for your comments.

    Would you be willing to do a Q&A article, along the lines of the ones that Walt Meier posted here?
    —————–
    Steve, I just now saw this (didn’t have time to look yesterday). Yes, I would be interested in a Q&A article, would just need to find the time to fit it in…

    REPLY: I welcome such an article, please leave a note in comments to the attention of a moderator when you are ready. Thanks for your consideration. – Anthony Watts

  221. Amino Acids in Meteorites says:
    June 7, 2010 at 9:44 pm

    julienne:
    June 7, 2010 at 9:33 pm

    But 20% MYI ice loss was the average?
    ———————————————–
    Yes, here are the actual numbers (the average is 19% from 1985 to 2009).
    I could update for earlier years, but I haven’t because I’ve been focusing on
    different ice age classes (not just MYI) so I let the ice age algorithm run for a few
    years so that the ice ages several years). Note also that this analysis is limited to
    the Arctic Basin so it ignores MYI in the Canadian Archipelago and the E. Greenland
    Sea:

    % MYI lost

    1985 12.8105039
    1986 14.30199812
    1987 10.46114288
    1988 10.19337114
    1989 15.02136187
    1990 17.73519557
    1991 15.5931418
    1992 13.1896963
    1993 23.41461499
    1994 19.50301864
    1995 20.09187722
    1996 17.15417283
    1997 16.50369111
    1998 25.11130899
    1999 21.60541983
    2000 19.23207118
    2001 23.07242202
    2002 19.39927634
    2003 23.25106534
    2004 17.24944044
    2005 19.61811885
    2006 13.29363077
    2007 29.3133386
    2008 39.45054945
    2009 19.02376784

  222. Amino Acids in Meteorites says:
    June 7, 2010 at 9:44 pm

    julienne:
    June 7, 2010 at 9:33 pm

    But 20% MYI ice loss was the average?
    ———————————————–
    From 1985-2009 the average MYI ice loss is 19% to be exact.

  223. Amino Acids in Meteorites says:
    June 8, 2010 at 4:52 pm

    Julienne says:
    June 8, 2010 at 8:15 am

    Had there been less ice at the beginning of the melt season, 2008 may have broken the record seasonal minimum of September 2007

    If there had been less then I could see how you could say there is no recovery taking place. But there wasn’t. So isn’t that an indication of recovery taking place?
    ————————————————
    I wouldn’t say that more winter ice extent in a single year signifies a recovery. We don’t expect much changes in the winter ice cover since air temperatures will still get cold enough for a long time to come for the ice to reform in winter (and we certainly don’t see large changes in the winter ice cover during the satellite data record, even though the small trend is statistically significant).

    Certainly warmer SSTs and winter air temperatures will impact on the southerly extent of the winter ice cover so if these temperatures continue to warm, then yes, more changes in the winter ice extent are expected, especially as it starts to impact on the length of the melt (and growth) season. Winds too can sometimes play a large factor, such as this winter in the Bering Sea.

    I do find it interesting that the total ice loss in 2008 was actually greater than in 2007, but since more southerly winter ice is likely thin, first-year ice, it would melt out anyway (though it may delay the lateral and basal melt of the ice further north, since it first needs to be removed)

  224. For those interested, here is also the percentage of FYI lost (again, it’s limited to the Arctic Basin). Note the little FYI lost in 1996 and the large amount lost in 2007.

    % FYI lost

    1985 63.13
    1986 55.29
    1987 67.75
    1988 57.58
    1989 57.82
    1990 68.56
    1991 62.28
    1992 51.26
    1993 61.53
    1994 46.07
    1995 56.15
    1996 34.51
    1997 52.78
    1998 55.73
    1999 68.16
    2000 54.66
    2001 49.10
    2002 68.84
    2003 63.69
    2004 60.02
    2005 71.89
    2006 64.82
    2007 83.84
    2008 63.72
    2009 60.00

  225. AndyW says: June 8, 2010 at 10:17 pm

    “No the argument for this is a long term trend in those areas, you can have fluctuations within that time and the theory is still valid ( or not, but you’d have to show it to be not, and to show it to be not then you’d need more than 2 years data).”

    But I’m not arguing the long term trend, I am arguing the recent change (3 months) and current situation. Antarctic sea ice area and extent are currently well above average and the Ross Sea ice hypothesis does not seem to explanation. My question is what is the cause of the recent rapid increase in Antarctic Sea Ice Area and Extent and current very large anomaly?

    “Not if it is down to the Antarctic getting colder which you are suggesting. If it was getting colder then the rate of decline of ice extent from the maximum would be slowed, which it is not, or else you would have to say it is getting colder part of the year only, which I would not say is likely. Also I’d expect the maxima to get greater if it was colder but they tend to fluctuate.”

    But the PDO only switched to its (approximately 30 year) cool phase in the last couple years;

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/04/29/nasa-pdo-flip-to-cool-phase-confirmed-cooler-times-ahead/

    and we’ve seen a swing from El Nino to La Nina in the last couple months;

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/05/13/r-i-p-el-nino/

    thus this is the first time we’ve got a cool PDO and a La Nina, since we’ve been able to reasonably effectively measure Antarctic sea ice area and extent. One wouldn’t expect to see the impact of this combination on recent years’ maximums and the rate of decline from such, as this combination did not exist until the last few months. If you look at this NSIDC chart;

    you’ll note that Antarctic Sea Ice Extent did a strange wiggle in March, and then spiked like a rocket. At present it appears that Antarctic Sea Ice Extent exceeds 2 standard deviations (admittedly narrow due to NSIDC’s choice to exclude 2001 – 2010 in order to make their Arctic chart look scarier/abnormal).

    “Until someone comes up with a better explanation I am happy with it.”

    Accepting that it might be incorrect, would you agree that my hypothesis above offers a better explanation for the recent (last 3 months) significant increase in Antarctic Sea Ice Anomaly than does the Ross Sea ice hypothesis?

  226. Julienne says:
    June 9, 2010 at 11:44 am

    I wouldn’t say that more winter ice extent in a single year signifies a recovery.

    I can see we are thinking in different terms. I am looking at it in the years since 2007 to now. And I do see a recovery. You are thinking in long term. So you are not ready to say there is or is not a recovery.

    So you are saying it comes down to whether you think global warming is happening or not? Or something else?

  227. Amino Acids in Meteorites says:
    June 9, 2010 at 6:43 pm

    Julienne says:
    June 9, 2010 at 11:44 am

    I wouldn’t say that more winter ice extent in a single year signifies a recovery.

    I can see we are thinking in different terms. I am looking at it in the years since 2007 to now. And I do see a recovery. You are thinking in long term. So you are not ready to say there is or is not a recovery.

    So you are saying it comes down to whether you think global warming is happening or not? Or something else?
    —————————
    Yes, I do think of it terms of the long term trend rather than year to year variability. There was a lot of emphasis placed on 2007, which is probably in part that it took everyone by surprise (including myself). But just looking at the 30 year satellite record, while the drop from 2006 and 2007 was dramatic, the increase from 1995 to 1996 was just as dramatic and highlights that an anomalous summer weather pattern can have a large impact on the ice cover, despite the trend. Since the trend actually increased further after 2009 I wouldn’t argue that there is a recovery yet, just like I wouldn’t have said that 2007 meant the Arctic would be ice free in the next few years.

  228. Amino Acids in Meteorites says:
    June 9, 2010 at 6:43 pm

    Julienne says:
    June 9, 2010 at 11:44 am

    I wouldn’t say that more winter ice extent in a single year signifies a recovery.

    I can see we are thinking in different terms. I am looking at it in the years since 2007 to now. And I do see a recovery. You are thinking in long term. So you are not ready to say there is or is not a recovery.

    So you are saying it comes down to whether you think global warming is happening or not? Or something else?
    —————————-
    Oh and I don’t think it comes down to whether or not someone thinks that global warming is happening or not. I do believe the planet is in a warming phase and that is having an impact on the sea ice. But there are so many feedbacks in the climate system that can either enhance the ice loss or slow it down, and given the uncertainties in understanding and modeling some of these feedbacks, especially cloud cover and precipitation, I think no one can say with any certainty what the future holds. I would only say that if the planet continues to warm, the Arctic will transition towards a seasonal ice cover. But along this trajectory there will be ups and downs. I look at it this way: when natural variability is in phase with the background warming signal, large drops in the ice cover will occur (such as what happened in 2007). When natural variability is in the opposite phase, some recovery can happen for a year or longer (and may slow the downward trend). But eventually natural variability will once again be in phase with the background warming signal and large ice loss will once again occur.

  229. Just The Facts said June 9, 2010 at 3:41 pm

    “But I’m not arguing the long term trend, I am arguing the recent change (3 months) and current situation. Antarctic sea ice area and extent are currently well above average and the Ross Sea ice hypothesis does not seem to explanation. My question is what is the cause of the recent rapid increase in Antarctic Sea Ice Area and Extent and current very large anomaly?”

    But the anomaly is compared to a long term trend, if you compared current ice at this time in the Antarctic to the last 3 or 4 years the anomaly will be near zero! The trend has been for ice to be increasing more rapidly in recent years compared to the long term trend, hence the positive deviation from the graph. That’s why I am saying you can’t just do a snapshot between recent years.

    Your thoughts on the maxima and the decline from it are interesting, we will have to see if the maxima is bigger and the decline slower than normal come September / October.

    Andy

  230. Julienne

    I won’t ask any more and take your time. I’ll just wait until you have the Q & A post. It will be interesting to read it and then follow all the comments from you and everyone else in the thread. :-)

  231. AndyW says: June 9, 2010 at 10:32 pm

    “But the anomaly is compared to a long term trend, if you compared current ice at this time in the Antarctic to the last 3 or 4 years the anomaly will be near zero! The trend has been for ice to be increasing more rapidly in recent years compared to the long term trend, hence the positive deviation from the graph. That’s why I am saying you can’t just do a snapshot between recent years.

    Your thoughts on the maxima and the decline from it are interesting, we will have to see if the maxima is bigger and the decline slower than normal come September / October.”

    Andy, we may have a problem here, because I pretty much agree with you. My point to jeff brown above was specific to the current area and extent, and jeff’s assertion that it was explained away by the Ross Sea ice hypothesis, which does not appear to be the case thus far this year. From a bigger picture/longer term perspective I completely agree, two points in time are completely meaningless. I would go further to say that when working with 30 years of sea ice data on a 4.5 billion year old planet we have just begun the process of understanding this aspect of Earth’s climate system and any predictions we make at present are at best educated guesses.

    I appreciate your reasoned and amicable approach to this discussion, hope to continue it in forthcoming threads and look forward to seeing how the world unfolds…

  232. Whole lot of -snip- going on here, isn’t there.

    The decline of arctic ice mass/thickness since 1980 is well established.

    The interesting thing is that in recent years the rate of decline of mass/thickness increased.

    You do remember the “tipping point” that was predicted, don’t you?

Comments are closed.