By Steve Goddard
The sea ice concentration game.
Arctic Ice is more concentrated in 2010 than in past years
The record low Arctic Oscillation during the past winter led to a very tightly compacted central Arctic ice mass – which is clearly evident in the UIUC images above. Some commentors have found this confusing because according to NSIDC, extent is slightly lower this year than previous years. (NORSEX disagrees with the NISDC assessment, but that is a topic of a separate discussion.)
Is it possible to have higher concentration and lower extent? Of course, it is expected. If you put a 10 kg block of ice in a swimming pool, the ice will occupy a much smaller extent (and area) of the pool than a 10kg bag of ice cubes poured into the pool. Which one would melt faster? The bag of ice cubes would, because it has more surface area exposed to the water. We have an analogous situation with Arctic ice in 2010. The ice (by some measures) occupies a smaller area than the past three years – but is more concentrated.This bodes well for less melt later in the summer.
Now, let’s look at the current stats for the Arctic Basin, measured from PIPS maps.
2010 ice volume is above 2007-2009 and just below 2006.
2010 average ice thickness is approximately the same as 2006 and 2007. It is higher than “rotten ice” 2008 and 2009.
2010 Arctic Basin ice area is just below 2006 and 2007. It is higher than 2008 and 2009. When I refer to the Arctic Basin, I am considering only the region below – which corresponds approximately to the maximum September extent in the NSIDC records.
‘
Below is yesterday’s Arctic satellite photo. The ice is very concentrated.
Conclusion : Current conditions continue to indicate a larger minimum ice extent than 2007-2009. This could change if the weather is very warm, windy or sunny during July. The ice has started to melt offshore at Barrow.
http://seaice.alaska.edu/gi/observatories/barrow_webcam
Comparison of June 10, 2008 with June 10, 2010 below. There is a lot more thick ice this year.
MODERATOR :
There is supposed to be a youtube video below the last sentence. Please add this text:
[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=762CMOmZ4jE&feature=player_embedded]
good stuff..i am very curious to see how this year shapes up and i am also hopeful that Bastardi is right beginning this winter!
For the period 2003 to 2009 based on JAXA data, the greatest loss on a daily basis occurs during the month of July. It was during this time that 2007 saw the worst of its loss.
I think the next 4-6 weeks will pretty much tell the story of this years minimum extent but my money is on an improvement over the 2009 result. I think we got a lot of late ice at the end of winter that melted (or broke off) very quickly leading to the falls in extent we saw in May. I think the thicker ice will be a bit more resilient.
Look at the daily ice loss on a 15 day moving average and you can already see the rate of loss levelling out when the long term trend seems to be for the rate of loss to increase until late July or August.
Having said this, my understanding is that localised conditions can always override global ones in the short term so there will always be a fair degree of uncertainty in any prediction for a single locality for a limited timeframe.
Time will tell. A solid core will likely generate faster and ultimately more extensive ice down time. Regional cold is still that.
Of course, I think Steve and everyone else knows what I (and the NIC) think of his PIPS 2.0 data, but he continues to weave in throughout his interesting tale of the current Arctic conditions. Let’s take a look at his PIPS 2.0 map for June 10, 2010 for a second, to see how severely flawed it is. Look at this map:
http://www7320.nrlssc.navy.mil/pips2/archive/retrievepic.html?filetype=Thickness&year=2010&month=6&day=10
And then compare it to these two very detailed maps:
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/NEWIMAGES/arctic.seaice.color.000.png
http://iup.physik.uni-bremen.de:8084/amsr/arctic_AMSRE_nic.png
And you see some major melting going on now in the Beaufort sea and out into the Arctic Basin and over into the Chuckchi Sea. Yet the PIPS 2.0 model doesn’t seem to even recognize this break up and rapidly lowering concentration of ice. Though the PIOMAS model seems to show that melt occuring:
http://psc.apl.washington.edu/zhang/IDAO/seasonal_outlook.html
In short, the PIPS 2.0 model would seem to show ice that is anywhere from one to 2.5 meters thick, where there is actually concentration falling down into the 50% range, meaning that there could even be open ocean, and in fact, if we look at this high res satellite image of the region, we can see that in fact there is a large break up of ice that is not the “shearing” that Steve was pushing as the cause of such a rapid ice extent loss just a week or so ago:
http://ice-map.appspot.com/?map=Arc&sat=ter&lvl=7&lat=73.190674&lon=-137.618661&yir=2010&day=161
Clearly this ice is melting, and concentration is falling, yet the PIPS 2.0 model misses a great part of that.
WUWT? Maybe another sign that PIOMAS has it right, and the Navy and the NIC are right in not putting much credance in the PIPS 2.0 model data?
Watch what happens in July-the melt will slow way down. Plus I feel a Nina’s coming on,
further cooling….
At the risk of Mr. Goddard sending me globe with the poles clearly identified in 100 point font, let me point out that current Antarctic sea ice concentration is significantly higher today;
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/ANT-ARCHIVE/ant.20100610.jpg
than it was in 2009;
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/ANT-ARCHIVE/ant.20090610.jpg
2008;
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/ANT-ARCHIVE/ant.20080610.jpg
or 2007:
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/ANT-ARCHIVE/antarctic.0.2007061010.jpg
Antarctic Sea Ice Extent is also currently very high and exceeds NCIDC’s misleadingly narrow normal range (misleadingly narrow due to NSIDC’s choice to exclude 2001 – 2010 data in order to make their Arctic chart look scarier/abnormal):
http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/daily_images/S_stddev_timeseries.png
With high concentration in both the Antarctic and Arctic, Global Sea Ice Area;
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/global.daily.ice.area.withtrend.jpg
may be on its way up…
A frequently overlooked factor is that the arctic ice is geographically constrained. Note that the downslope (melting) and upslope (freezing) curves tend to cluster in narrow bands. Studies of extent growth/shrinkage are complicated not only by the ice concentration, but by where the extent lies relative to shorelines.
R Gates
The PIPS map shows the same region of ice being blown out of the Beaufort Sea as the UIUC maps. PIPS2 is the best available source of thickness data. Your claims are inaccurate.
Steve Goddard said in the original piece
“The record low Arctic Oscillation during the past winter led to a very tightly compacted central Arctic ice mass ”
Can you tell me why that is, my assumption was that the negative AO led to higher temperatures at higher lattitudes which would tend to make it less. Winds?
Andy
Actually, looking at June 1989 in comparison
http://igloo.atmos.uiuc.edu/cgi-bin/test/print.sh?fm=06&fd=10&fy=2010&sm=06&sd=10&sy=1989
the ice is less concentrated in 1989, however that had a very large positive AO of 1.679 3.106 3.279 for December, January and February and so that is puzzling. 1990 has lower AO, but is less concentrated. An interesting topic in itself.
Andy
I hope Steve’s right that there’ll be a large minimum this year, but I have trouble squaring this extra thick ice with AMSR-E showing the fastest April-to-June extent reduction since records started in 2002.
R. Gates says:June 10, 2010 at 9:08 pm
R. Gates, I took a look at all three of the images (PIPS, Cryosphere Today, and AMSRE). I see very little difference between them. You need to expand the PIPS map first, but once you do, the melting in the Beaufort Sea and the Chukchi are both clearly visible, and of a comparable size to the other two images. It is perhaps a bit confusing because the PIPS map shows open ocean as white, while the other two maps show it as black.
But in short, I have looked where you asked us to look, and I have not seen a single one of the differences you claim are there. Expand the pips map until it fills your screen (to the same scale as the other images), remember that white = open ocean, and look again.
I had to read this in todays paper (both the National Post and the Vancouver Sun) …
a senior climatologist with Environment Canada “… expects to see a record retreat of the Arctic ice this summer”
Read more: http://www.nationalpost.com/todays-paper/Despite+record+rains+flurries+2010+warmest+record/3134476/story.html#ixzz0qWKR8OHV
I don’t believe there has been any significant melt in the Arctic Basin so far this year, as temperatures have been too cold. The areas of open water are primarily the result of wind.
Yeah, looks pretty tightly compacted in those tiny 270 x 270 images – which include the entire earth, plus room to spare.
Zooming in – slightly – we see:
http://climateinsiders.files.wordpress.com/2010/06/uiucjune91990vs2010.png
Ah, now a full 641 x 641 pixels are used to show the data, plus the entire northern hemisphere, plus a nice, framing starry sky. Must be almost 200 x 300 data pixels there…
Looking at the exact same data in 1296 x 1296 resolution, we see that “tightly compacted central Arctic ice mass” has a lot of open water, absorbing those always-on spring/summer rays… Lots of pinks and reds, even by the ‘pole hole’, meaning 3% to 10% open water. Yellow means about 15% open water, green about 30%, and look at those light blues – that means about 70% open water.
Also note that each “pixel” does not have the same area – they are on a sphere. To get total sea ice volume (even for the Arctic Basin), you’d need to multiply sea ice thickness for that pixel by the varying area of each pixel by the amount of that pixel covered in sea ice (concentration). And hope that your model has given you accurate sea ice thickness estimates.
══════════════════════
The importance of high resolution:
Low resolution: picket fence looks almost solid
http://tinyurl.com/2fajczo
High resolution: hey, you can see right through it
http://henbogle.files.wordpress.com/2008/05/picket-fence.jpg
“Watts Up With That?” has been included in this weeks Sites To See. I hope you like the image I featured, and I hope this helps to attract many new visitors here.
http://asthecrackerheadcrumbles.blogspot.com/2010/06/sites-to-see_11.html
A few more Arctic Sea Ice maps.
1.
http://www.weatheroffice.gc.ca/analysis/index_e.html
see Surface Analysis : Snow, Ice, SST:
http://www.weatheroffice.gc.ca/data/analysis/350_100.gif
2.
http://www.ec.gc.ca/glaces-ice/default.asp?lang=eng&n=D32C361E-1
see Western Arctic area then Regional Ice Chart – Departure from Normal Concentration:
http://ice-glaces.ec.gc.ca/prods/WIS56DPTCT/20100607180000_WIS56DPTCT_0005022692.gif
3.
http://iup.physik.uni-bremen.de:8084/amsr/regions.html
see North West Passage:
http://iup.physik.uni-bremen.de:8084/amsr/NorthWestPassage_visual.png
4.
http://www.ifm.zmaw.de/forschung/fernerkundung/meereis/amsre-sea-ice/
see Daily updated AMSR-E sea ice concentration maps:
ftp://ftp-projects.zmaw.de/seaice/NEAR_REAL_TIME/Arc_latest_large.png
5.
http://www.arcus.org/search/seaiceoutlook/2009_outlook/2009_pan-arctic_summary.php
see Figure 7 and 8:
6.
Daily Tracks with NCEP Ice
http://iabp.apl.washington.edu/maps_daily_trackncep.html
http://iabp.apl.washington.edu/maps_daily_arcticbasin.html
7.
http://polar.ncep.noaa.gov/seaice/Analyses.html
see MMAB Sea Ice Concentration — Northern Hemisphere high resolution
http://polar.ncep.noaa.gov/seaice/hires/nh.xml
Regards
Anu says:
June 10, 2010 at 11:42 pm
It is natural to think that high resolution will always give you more information than low resolution, and it is also a sign that you do not have much experience or any of quantitative image analysis in either 2D or 3D. We are talking about measuring differences between two images / datasets. What you find in the real world, as I have discussed earlier with R Gates, is that, somewhat counter-intuitively, if you take images of two samples (or groups of samples) with fine spatial structure, and image them at a set of different resolutions, the ability of image analysis so measure differences between the two samples is surprisingly well preserved with decreasing resolution. In some cases the ability to measure difference is oddly strengthened by decreased spatial resolution. This is related to signal to noise ratio.
As I said before, I’m not arguing that low is better than high – everyone involved in image analysis (which is my day job at present) likes the highest resolution and best images. But it definitely is not a general truth that lower resolution means decreased or no ability to see differences. Often the reality is very little change.
What adds to this is if the structures in question have fractal pattern – similar architecture repeating at different spatial scales. A snowflake is a fractal object. Many coastlines are also, and Arctic ice probably is also fractal to some degree.
So this resolution argument wont work as a way of refuting the conclusion from the images posted above that the Arctic ice currently does have a high concentration.
i see there are people in comments here still trying to convince us that there has been no increase in ice since 2007
they don’t want us to believe our eyes?
Why not wait a few months and try not to get too excited?
Yes, what’s happening to ice is of continuing general interest, especially the teasing out of all the reasons for ice cover changes – winds, water currents, insolation – with the attendant difficulty of reading long term climate signals from ice cover.
But whether the earth has warmed a bit/is still warming/may be on a plateau/is beginning to cool, doesn’t speak directly to the “CA” bit of CAGW/CACG. Well, I suppose cooling would! But I’m always seeing/arguing about confusion between climate shifts as such, and “warming from man made CO2”: to accept there may have been a little warming isn’t to accept that it’s all CO2 driven via positive feedbacks. Or that warmer = catastrophe.
But, darn it, I forget that the Media don’t care about logic so loads of ice would help off set the poor furry wurry poley bear argument…
Thanks to ALL you informed types who blog here, it really helps us less informed ones, and to Anthony & mods for running it.
Not ignoring that many alarmists used 2007 to sell horror stories but if as is widely accepted on both sides that 2007 was an extraordinary low due to weather (winds) and if 2008 and 2009 represent a recovery from that extraordinary event then what can we say?
Well it looks like 2010 is going to have a lower extent than 2006. The recent downward trend as measured by satellites is continuing. I still accept that this time period is short (1979 to present) and what happened in the 30’s and 40’s is important but that downward trend still needs to be explained.
You seem to have ignored any analysis of temperature in many of your recent posts, which ultimately is what we are concerned with here.
Excerpted from: Anu on June 10, 2010 at 11:42 pm
Whoa now, that would be some trick. The entire UIUC image is only 1709 x 856 pixels, same as the copy used here. If you’re blowing it up from an 856 height to a 1296 then you’re “creating” data where none exists. Are you using the James Hansen method of image processing?
The importance of using the same data. That is not the same fence, the slat and space widths are not known, we don’t know if the ratios are the same… They weren’t even taken from the same angle or distance. Heck, if you want to see through a picket fence all you have to do is get close to it, and the second picture is clearly taken closer than the first. If that second picture had been taken at that distance but at the same resolution as the first, you still would see lots of detail right through it.
Now let’s see some real analyses of the same data. If you don’t mind, of course. 🙂
Does anyone have access to a chart showing water temperatures in the Arctic (surface and 2 metres below) once the ice has melted? Presumably this will be substantially different according to location, so specific locations rather than an avberage would be useful.
Tonyb
Mr. Gates, also look at where the ice is. The western Alaska/Siberia area is where the ice went away in 2007, and its where the ice is most concentrated this year. That PIOMASS model for late August looks most unlikely, even to the point of absurdity. Mr. Goddard, please bookmark that model so we can see a comparison with actual at end August. Hopefully the result of such a comparison will put the subject to rest in only about 2&1/2 months. Murray
What about the volcanoes in that area? Any effect?
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v409/n6822/full/409808a0.html
Well, he can double his money by betting on that, at https://www.intrade.com
goddard said:
“I don’t believe there has been any significant melt in the Arctic Basin so far this year, as temperatures have been too cold.”
Well then you disagree with NOAA: they showed that we had quite large anomalies in the acrtic basin
http://nsidc.org/images/arcticseaicenews/20100608_Figure4.png
Temperatures were 2 to 5 degrees Celsius (4 to 9 degrees Fahrenheit) above average across much of the Arctic Ocean. Of course I know it’s cold, but stating it has been “too cold” is not consistent with anomalies.
Anu says: June 10, 2010 at 11:42 pm
Are you looking at the same image, Anu? I just brought it up (conveniently from the link you linked and from the link in that “tiny” picture Goddard posted and I can’t see what you’re talking about. The pole is solid. There’s plenty of holes and open water around the coasts of Russia and Canada, nortehrn Scandinavia, and Iceland, but the actual geographic (and indeed magnetic) pole is solid as can be. I’m honestly stumped about this open water you’re claiming to see. It’s pretty plainly solid from 70 degrees north.
HQ Video of the Melting from Day 50 to 158 this year:
Same stuff last year:
Not suitable for qualitative analysis due to video composition in time. However, the centering effect is noticable.
Steve,
A few months ago, it all seemed so simple–Flash up the NSIDC ice extent chart and point out the 2010 blue line was about to go above the average for the first time in years and bingo, AGW was busted. Yet sadly the blue line ran out of steam and now when the NSIDC chart shows ice extent has gone into a downward tail spin and looks set to show a reocrd low minimum extent, your posts on Arctic ice have become a confusing mess of data and charts to hide the decline in extent. The new argument about volume, concentration v. extent is a classic smoke screen.
P.S Keep It Simple:
http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/daily_images/N_stddev_timeseries.png
MJK.
Steve Goddard says:
“PIPS2 is the best available source of thickness data.”
—————-
Except that PIPS 2.0 is NOT data…it is a model, just as PIOMAS is. Your insistance that it is data is the most misleading thing of all.
stevengoddard says: June 10, 2010 at 9:50 pm
R Gates
The PIPS map shows the same region of ice being blown out of the Beaufort Sea as the UIUC maps. PIPS2 is the best available source of thickness data. Your claims are inaccurate.
I agree Steve, here is a blink of CT & PIPS2.
http://i49.tinypic.com/t6w9hv.jpg
stevengoddard says:
June 10, 2010 at 10:52 pm
I don’t believe there has been any significant melt in the Arctic Basin so far this year, as temperatures have been too cold. The areas of open water are primarily the result of wind.
In which case your calculations of volume for that region (if accurate) would show no change in volume whereas they actually show a drop from ~80,000 to ~65,000.
DMI show that the daily mean temperature north of 80ºN is warm enough to melt seaice. You’ve read so much of your own propaganda that you’re starting to believe it, each post over the last few weeks has seen more desperate clutching at straws, you should heed Leif’s advice given to another poster: “when in a hole stop digging”.
Arctic/Antarctic “see-saw”:
I think the globe is in for a plummeting temperature because, during the past 50 years, we have experienced the seesaw, when one pole has increased, the other has shrunk in ice content.
Now it appears ice is growing at both poles and not oscillating. This looks like we are headed for an ice age for which mankind is ill prepared due to the “prophets” of the warm-earth cult.
For people unfamiliar with Arctic Climate Research at the University of Illinois here’s some links:
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/NEWIMAGES/arctic.seaice.color.000.png
1296 x 1296 image of Arctic sea ice concentration
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/
Recent research related to Arctic climate and climate change at the Department of Atmospheric Sciences at the University of Illinois.
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/
Current sea ice and snow conditions
Willis Eschenbach says:
June 10, 2010 at 10:41 pm
But in short, I have looked where you asked us to look, and I have not seen a single one of the differences you claim are there. Expand the pips map until it fills your screen (to the same scale as the other images), remember that white = open ocean, and look again.
Willis I pointed out some discrepancies regarding the thick ice predictions of PIPS vs the satellite imagery a fer days ago. Here’s one of the more glaring examples, PIPS predicts 4-5m thick ice right where there’s a polynyna! (red on PIPS vs blue on AMSR-E)
http://i302.photobucket.com/albums/nn107/Sprintstar400/pipsASMR.gif
Amino Acids in Meteorites says:
June 11, 2010 at 3:29 am
i see there are people in comments here still trying to convince us that there has been no increase in ice since 2007
they don’t want us to believe our eyes?
What do your eyes tell you about this:
http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/seaice/extent/AMSRE_Sea_Ice_Extent_L.png
If you’re having trouble distinguishing red lines from green lines, take a look at the numbers:
http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/seaice/extent/plot.csv
2010 is 269,219 km² less Arctic sea ice than 2007.
Earth’s climate doesn’t care if people are “convinced” about anything.
The warmists have updated their story.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/06/100611093710.htm
Still waiting to see the slope of melt from July 1-July 15. While August will be decisive (as it usually is), those first two weeks of July could be an early indicator.
Surely if 2007’s record is in play, as some continue to insist may be in the cards, it should become apparent in those two weeks.
Likewise, if a 2006-like year is in the cards, I would expect to see significant flattening of the current trend by then.
2006 vs 2008 vs 2009 did not really separate from each other until Aug 1 tho, which shows the imporantance of thickness.
But if we’re going to have another 2007 or its near cousin, we should see it by July 15.
kadaka (KD Knoebel) says:
June 11, 2010 at 3:47 am
Excerpted from: Anu on June 10, 2010 at 11:42 pm
“Looking at the exact same data in 1296 x 1296 resolution…”
Whoa now, that would be some trick. The entire UIUC image is only 1709 x 856 pixels, same as the copy used here. If you’re blowing it up from an 856 height to a 1296 then you’re “creating” data where none exists. Are you using the James Hansen method of image processing?
Actually you have it backwards that UIUC image you refer to is the result of compressing the original image so as to compare it with an earlier image taken with a different imager. Both have somewhat different color palettes so the recent one always looks more concentrated. If you look at the original image with it’s natural color palette you’ll see what Anu is referring to. Of course Steve wants to preserve the illusion that the Arctic Basin is a dense region of compressed ice so he shows you the comparator one.
Phil & cohorts
I expect a full apology from you in September for wasting everybody’s time with your perpetual FUD.
Steve Keohane
Nice map, thanks. I continue to be astonished by the amount of BS being thrown around by some FUDsters here.
Here is my version:
Murray Duffin
I am taking names and numbers, thanks ;^)
Marc77
Thanks for the snow link. How many clueless columns have Romm and Tamino written, attacking me for simply pointing out the now acknowledged increase in winter snow?
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/06/100611093710.htm
Phil. says:
Actually you have it backwards that UIUC image you refer to is the result of compressing the original image so as to compare it with an earlier image taken with a different imager. Both have somewhat different color palettes so the recent one always looks more concentrated. If you look at the original image with it’s natural color palette you’ll see what Anu is referring to. Of course Steve wants to preserve the illusion that the Arctic Basin is a dense region of compressed ice so he shows you the comparator one.
++++
You’re still trying to insist on the importance of comparing apples to oranges as the appropriate scientific method?
If you had the larger images for 2008 vs 2010 from UIUC, what makes you think they’d show anything different compared to each other, than what the smaller images from 2008 vs 2010 show compared to each other?
So volume matters now? When I asked that last year when AREA was higher everyone said volume did not matter. Now it does when area is lower.
Got it.
[REPLY – Area matters more because that directly affects albedo. But both matter. ~ Evan]
stevengoddard says:
June 11, 2010 at 8:38 am
Phil & cohorts
I expect a full apology from you in September for wasting everybody’s time with your perpetual FUD.
Actually we should expect an apology from you for all the FUD you produce and when challenged on the errors you just run away and hide. All the criticism about your use of PIPS could have been addressed by a single post showing the comparison of your method with volume data from PIPS itself as I suggested several times. However you have so far not even acknowledged that possibility. As I’ve shown above PIPS is putting thick ice where none exists so the results would be questionable even if you calculated them correctly. The correctness or otherwise of your method won’t be addressed by September unless you take steps to calibrate it. Your use of compressed images to demonstrate ‘very concentrated’ ice is disingenuous when you must know that at full resolution they show very fragmented ice (this has been pointed out to you several times but as usual you ignore it). Sadly this is a pattern that you have followed before so I don’t expect anything to change.
Benjamin P.
That is funny. Last year the AGW big concern was about ice volume, and this year the hysteria is about a minor deviation in extent in the annual ice of the Barents Sea.
geo says:
June 11, 2010 at 8:55 am
Phil. says:
Actually you have it backwards that UIUC image you refer to is the result of compressing the original image so as to compare it with an earlier image taken with a different imager. Both have somewhat different color palettes so the recent one always looks more concentrated. If you look at the original image with it’s natural color palette you’ll see what Anu is referring to. Of course Steve wants to preserve the illusion that the Arctic Basin is a dense region of compressed ice so he shows you the comparator one.
++++
You’re still trying to insist on the importance of comparing apples to oranges as the appropriate scientific method?
No that’s what I’m criticizing Steve for.
If you had the larger images for 2008 vs 2010 from UIUC, what makes you think they’d show anything different compared to each other, than what the smaller images from 2008 vs 2010 show compared to each other?
Here you go, full sized images made from the same imager comparing 2007 and 2010 from a couple of weeks ago (I rotated one of them to give you the same orientation):
http://i302.photobucket.com/albums/nn107/Sprintstar400/20102007comp.gif
You could always check any date for yourself .
Steve Keohane says:
June 11, 2010 at 7:18 am
stevengoddard says: June 10, 2010 at 9:50 pm
R Gates
The PIPS map shows the same region of ice being blown out of the Beaufort Sea as the UIUC maps. PIPS2 is the best available source of thickness data. Your claims are inaccurate.
I agree Steve, here is a blink of CT & PIPS2.
http://i49.tinypic.com/t6w9hv.jpg
____________
Thanks for that…I think it shows quite the opposite..that the PIPS 2.0 MODEL is even more in error, and clearly shows 2.5 meter thick ice when there is open water or low concentration. It does not surprize me at all that the NIC discounts the PIPS 2.0 Model…and hence, why the great need for CryoSat 2.
Steven,
Hmmm! The ninth (or more) in a series with the same argumentative respondents. Tell us the truth, you’re not that concerned with the NH sea ice, you just really enjoy goading them don’t you. ;~P
That will change the wobbling of the earth. Is Gaia having a headache or is she getting dizzy?
“Below is yesterday’s Arctic satellite photo. The ice is very concentrated.”
Wow, what a difference going there and zooming in on the images makes though! http://ice-map.appspot.com/
Steve,
Although I know you are loathe to admit your calculations have a problem, here is a comparison between processing the PIPS images with and without including the concentration. I’ve plotted for the average September figures as reported by Posey, when I have little doubt the area of ice coverage would be considered “Central Arctic”.
http://img576.imageshack.us/img576/7138/volumecfposey.png
It is obvious that not including ice concentration produces pulls down the correlation with the published data, but I doubt that will stop you basing your conclusions on miscalculated values from an obsolete model.
Rapid ice melt is always a function of regional weather pattern variation, not Arctic-wide parameters. It matters more what weather patterns are at play directly related to the GPS of the melt occuring, than any talk of total area or extent. If we focused our attention sea by sea, we would all have a better understanding of what is occurring and why. Looking at an average data point over the entire Arctic is meaningless.
We have such a myopic view of the globe because we always see it at about the size of a baseball. A single Arctic wide data point of area or extent is data rich, information poor. The discussion that matters should change to the GPS of the melt and why that area is melting.
Phil. says:
June 11, 2010 at 8:15 am (Edit)
What does that have to do with R. Gates claim, or my counterclaim, about the specific images in question? I said nothing about the images you are talking about, what does it have to do with me? Please address your comments to someone who is talking about whatever it is you are discussing.
Personally I just want summer to arrive anytime soon, preferably before summers end.
lol a few weeks ago there was a couple of days with above normal temperatures, and the greenies screamed global warming, climate change, doh! Now we’re going on the second month of below normal, which is quite normal every few years around these parts anyway, and has been for several decades, but now it’s the horrible climate change due to man(n) at work.
A sea-ice concentration site in Norway with nice maps:
http://saf.met.no/p/ice/nh/conc/conc.shtml
I enjoy reading these updates and thoughts, as well as the comments. It will be interesting to see how things turn out, but in the long run I question how important one year’s minimum is. Honestly, we could set a record low minimum this year and I wouldn’t be convinced of AGW, or we could set a record high minimum this year and I wouldn’t be convinced against AGW. Following it this year is just a curiousity for me and the only major relevance it has is to show how alarmists comments of an ice-free 2008 or 2013 are a bit extreme.
However, because of these analyses I’m really looking forward to seeing how a dated (PIPS 2.0) model performs for a prediction like this. PIPS 2.0 may be inferior, but apparently it’s the best that’s publicly available, so I commend Steve for using it since we can’t do better. Even if it is erroneous, it’s systematic deviations year-to-year should be somewhat consistent and this self-consistency should result in a least moderate predictive power (as Steve pointed out in a previous post…RSQ of 0.65 IIRC).
Perhaps the most fun comes from reading the comments: small vs big maps, concentration affecting volume, etc. It’s amazing how critical people can be of others when their own analyzes/comments make the same errors. My personal favorite so far is R. Gates on June 11 @ 7:07am versus his first sentence in the June 10 9:08 am post.
That said, I await the September minimum with interest, but won’t put too much stock in the final number either way. If it’s low, skeptics will say it’s only one year, and if it’s high, warmists will say the same.
-Scott
Willis Eschenbach says: June 11, 2010 at 11:42 am
Phil. says:
June 11, 2010 at 8:15 am (Edit)
Willis, it appears an obtuse but prevalent tactic is what I label as a ‘tangental argument’. That is, their answer does not directly, if at all, address the question, rather more issues are raised and any resemblance of an answer is to some other issue.
Phil,
So you think you might have found a pixel or two that you don’t understand. That must prove that the PIPS data is worthless. You better call up the Navy and tell them about it.
Tom P
What is obvious is that PIPS2 already corrects for concentration, and that whatever procedures you are suggesting are incorrect.
http://www.tos.org/oceanography/issues/issue_archive/issue_pdfs/15_1/15_1_preller_et_al.pdf
https://www1.cmos.ca/Amsoft%20Web%20Data/upload/abstracts115/7052archive.html
One of the reasons I harp on the availability of Intrade as a betting mechanism is to cool tempers on this matter and avoid the impulse to demand apologies, etc. If one can punish the other side by taking their money, that’s “satisfaction” enough.
Steve,
Your ice volumes, r2 0.67 t0 published data. Mine, r2 0.92. Who do you think is presenting misleading data?
Archonix says:
June 11, 2010 at 6:20 am
Anu says: June 10, 2010 at 11:42 pm
Are you looking at the same image, Anu? I just brought it up (conveniently from the link you linked and from the link in that “tiny” picture Goddard posted and I can’t see what you’re talking about. The pole is solid. There’s plenty of holes and open water around the coasts of Russia and Canada, nortehrn Scandinavia, and Iceland, but the actual geographic (and indeed magnetic) pole is solid as can be. I’m honestly stumped about this open water you’re claiming to see. It’s pretty plainly solid from 70 degrees north.
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/NEWIMAGES/arctic.seaice.color.000.png
Sea ice concentration refers to the fraction of ice within each image pixel. The images are color-coded to show varying levels of ice concentration. A pixel colored the yellow which signifies 85% sea ice concentration indicates, by definition, that there is 15% open water in that pixel.
(remember to click on the image – some browsers automatically shrink the image to try and fit it to your window)
Even north of Greenland there are yellow pixels, which means about 15% open water in that pixel. That’s what the colors ‘mean’. Even the pink pixels directly adjacent to the black “pole hole” (where the satellites cannot measure) signify about 3% open water.
Open water is very significant for Arctic sea ice melt – once the insulating layer of ice is broken, the much warmer waters below heat up the air temperatures along the margins of the open water, and the open water absorbs the suns rays, heats up, and this warm water attacks the sea ice from beneath. This “heat pincer” of both warmer water below and warmer air above, along the margins of open water, is the “crack in the armor” of Arctic sea ice. Open water is the catalyst for sea ice melt. I saw a paper a few weeks ago which had measured ocean temperatures below the sea ice, near open margins, and the warmth spreads underneath for some miles.
As an interesting aside, the very high “wind shear” to the North of Canada has made the NW passage being possible by the northern direct route an interesting possibility this year. So far considering this it is not looking too far fetched,
http://iup.physik.uni-bremen.de:8084/amsr/arctic_AMSRE_nic.png
“Wind shear” on the Siberian side is causing the Northern Passage to be once again a viable option so that is also interesting.
Andy
From: Anu on June 11, 2010 at 8:03 am
Image Properties, as it was downloaded on my computer in a separate browser tab:
900 x 900 is not 1296 x 1296.
Fail.
Roger Knights says @ June 11, 2010 at 2:08 pm
“One of the reasons I harp on the availability of Intrade as a betting mechanism is to cool tempers on this matter and avoid the impulse to demand apologies, etc. If one can punish the other side by taking their money, that’s “satisfaction” enough.”
Are you one of the owners of that company? If not can you stop doing viral advertising? If you want to put your money where your mouth is simply go to Lucia’s site and “wager” a guess there. Total cost = zero. Enough of this trying to pump one specific gambling firm repetively. Away with you.
Andy
Andy
phlogiston says:
June 11, 2010 at 2:56 am
Although some image processing might benefit from lower resolution images, there is no substitute for higher resolution data. Once you have that, you can subsample and smooth all you want – but you can’t go in the reverse direction.
Hence the acceptance of multi-billion dollar costs for the Hubble Space Telescope, for instance – higher resolution means new phenomena can be studied:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hubble_Space_Telescope
http://preposterousuniverse.com/writings/cosmologyprimer/images/HubbleDeepBig.jpg
Phil,
PIPS is the most accurate available historical source of thickness data, it does calculate and correct for concentration, and the numbers I present are accurate representations of their maps.
Your claims are inaccurate and baseless.
Steve Goddard said (regarding PIPS 2.0):
“The system produces a 120-hour forecast of ice fields which are sent to the National Ice Center (NIC) to be used in their daily ice forecasts.”
____________
Though as we’ve heard from someone from the NIC– they don’t tend to take the PIPS 2.0 MODEL very seriously and/or think it that accurate. Though the NIC did mention PIOMAS in their June update, and PIOMAS is painting quite a different picture of Arctic sea ice volume than one might gather from PIPS 2.0.
It will be nice when that CryoSat 2 DATA starts to flow in– won’t it!
Anu says:
June 11, 2010 at 3:46 pm
I love the Hubble images, thanks for the links.
Tom P
Since you are probably measuring a different region of the Arctic than me, I would say that your comparison is completely meaningless.
Tom P
What excuse are you going to hide behind come September?
R. Gates
The CryoSat data will be nice, but unfortunately won’t provide any historical reference.
AndyW says:
June 11, 2010 at 3:16 pm
As an interesting aside, the very high “wind shear” to the North of Canada has made the NW passage being possible by the northern direct route an interesting possibility this year. So far considering this it is not looking too far fetched,
http://iup.physik.uni-bremen.de:8084/amsr/arctic_AMSRE_nic.png
Ironically considering the thin new ice in the archipelago the southern route might not open up for the first time in 4 years due to the increased mobility of the old ice pieces drifting down from the north.
stevengoddard says:
June 11, 2010 at 4:12 pm
Phil,
PIPS is the most accurate available historical source of thickness data, it does calculate and correct for concentration, and the numbers I present are accurate representations of their maps.
It’s not thickness data it’s model results, the most accurate data would be the Navy data from the ‘Gore box’ and Icesat (with which PIOMAS has been crosschecked).
There is no evidence that your method provides an accurate representation of the PIPS data) in fact to the contrary).
Your claims are inaccurate and baseless.
The only way for my claims would be baseless would be if you had actually made a calibration of your method against PIPS own calculation of volume and posted it here, however you haven’t.
stevengoddard says:
June 11, 2010 at 5:47 pm
Tom P
Since you are probably measuring a different region of the Arctic than me, I would say that your comparison is completely meaningless.
Since he’s testing your calculation method against his and PIPS it doesn’t matter if it isn’t the exact same region. If you want to prove your method it’s time for you to step up to the plate.
Phil. says:
June 11, 2010 at 10:22 am
Here you go, full sized images made from the same imager comparing 2007 and 2010 from a couple of weeks ago (I rotated one of them to give you the same orientation):
http://i302.photobucket.com/albums/nn107/Sprintstar400/20102007comp.gif
You could always check any date for yourself .
++++
Hey, I appreciate the effort you put into that re the rotation. I really do. I’m always willing to give props to any evidence of good will in an effort to have a meeting of the minds. So props there, seriously.
I have to note there is no color scale on the pics. I’m left to guess what the colors mean re concentration. If I have to guess, they look pretty similar. Some less concentration in greater areas on 2010 and some even lesser concentration in somewhat smaller areas on the other.
As I’ve said many times since the middle of April, I’m really waiting for July 1, as at that point we get to some metrics I’m familiar with and trust as to their relevance. Others have other metrics, and that’s fine. The ones I trust start having relevance again starting around July 1. This current period from May 1-July 1, in my opinion, are very thin gruel indeed as to relevance re eventual minimum in September.
Steve has felt it relevant and appropriate it to continue to show why during this period he still sees what he sees. That’s fine. It’s a blog. Saying “See you in 2.5 months!” isn’t appropriate to the form. I get that. But from my perspective the argument he’s making hasn’t changed in any significant regards since the middle of April. To the degree the points he is making have relevance in this period, it is in trying thru repeititon to make it clear what the original argument was based on and why nothing since has changed it. Nothing wrong with repetition; some people need to read the same basic idea in multiple forms to “get” the gist (including me sometimes).
I’m actually pretty excited by this summer (July-September), as I think some theories will be proven or consigned to the dust heap of history. If you really believe in science, you are more interested in doing that than the actual results of which way it goes. I know I am.
R. Gates says:
June 11, 2010 at 10:23 am
R., do you have a citation for that claim? I couldn’t find confirmation … which means very little …
kadaka (KD Knoebel) says:
June 11, 2010 at 3:19 pm
You’re quite right – I had done a quick ‘Inspect element’ within my new browser (Chrome), and mistakenly wrote down img – width: 1296px, height: 1296 px, rather than Metrics->Properties->HTMLImageElement, NaturalHeight: 900 and NaturalWidth: 900.
My bad.
You get a ☆
The points about insight gained by higher resolution data remain, however.
Downsampling to compare to data from 3 decades ago is useful for some purposes:
http://igloo.atmos.uiuc.edu/cgi-bin/test/print.sh?fm=06&fd=10&fy=1979&sm=06&sd=10&sy=2010
But to see the current state of Arctic ice, I prefer all the resolution they have:
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/NEWIMAGES/arctic.seaice.color.000.png
There is significant open water in large parts of the Arctic Basin already.
Willis,
People are spreading complete nonsense here :
https://www1.cmos.ca/Amsoft%20Web%20Data/upload/abstracts115/7052archive.html
stevengoddard says:
June 11, 2010 at 8:38 am
Phil & cohorts
I expect a full apology from you in September for wasting everybody’s time with your perpetual FUD.
I don’t know if this summer will be the new record minimum,
but if it is,
it will be hilarious listening to you and others trying to “explain” it away…
Even beating 2009 or 2008 is going to require some quick talking and hand waving on your part. “Very sunny during July” isn’t going to cut it after all your “thick ice” claims.
I have no interest in the company, I have placed bets there, and my motive is as I have stated–i.e., to cool tempers here, and to get satisfaction from punishing the wrong side. (Non-monetary bets don’t do that.) I’ve been mightily annoyed at the know-it-all tone of many warmists and want to take them down a peg.
I would also like to attract more warmers over there, so I can bet against them. At present, the liquidity is thin, especially for the long-term bets.
PS: The only reason I plug Intrade is that it’s the only site I know of that takes climate bets. (Not that I’m at all conversant with what may be available on other sites.) If or anyone knows of such sites, please give their names and I’ll mention them as well.
Benjamin P brings up volume… an inconvenient truth.
Evan dismisses the comment because area effects albedo. Typical apples and oranges comparison one would expect from alarmists.
Any geologist will tell you that area=BS and volume = $$$$
But hey, just change the lingo to “concentration”
Anthony, your site is starting to make realclimate look better all the time. The denialist comments were one thing. Now that the denialists postings dominate, you are hurting the skeptical “cause” . Are the hits really worth it? The only thing that keeps me coming back are the comments from Lief… which get fewer and fewer…
PPS: Oops :”If YOU or anyone …”
Another reason for mentioning Intrade from time to time is to quote their current odds on various bets, which is a matter of general interest, as it indicates what people really (sincerely) think — i.e., what odds they’re willing to take a real risk on.
For something that we’ve been told isn’t really important and not worth blogging about this topic certainly is emotionally charged.
Global warming believers tell us continually to only look at long term effects. But they don’t act like they do that themselves.
PPPS: One of the reasons I like Intrade is that it involves directly betting against someone on the other side, which makes it moreinteresting. (More satisfying to win.)
There have been several long online explorations of many aspects of climate-betting, including reasons why it’s an important part of the climate debate. Here are links to the more important ones I’m aware of, all on warmist sites:
http://julesandjames.blogspot.com/2005/06/betting-summary.html
(Site of James Annan, a warmist scientist. He has a wikipedia entry. Lots of links there.)
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=161
(Huge thread with lots of twists.)
http://backseatdriving.blogspot.com/2007/04/new-global-warming-bet-for-7-10.html
(A recent article in a long series; click on his “betting” keyword to find links to his other posts.)
I might mention that I’ve been posting regularly here for 20 months and only started posting about Intrade about 8 (?) months ago. It’s not the reason I’m here.
Howard,
Well, not exactly.
The reason there are so many global warmers commenting in this thread is because the data from Arctic shows their PIOMAS graph is wrong. That graph is one of the last linchpins of global warming they think is still pristine. But the real data seen in real graphs, and real images, show that PIOMAS is wrong. (I wonder if global warming believers have spent any time at Cryosphere Today looking at images from the last 3 years…..just asking…..they probably don’t, they probably just gawk at the PIOMAS graph)
The PIOMAS graph shows a continual downturn in Arctic ice up to the present. So the prediction by Al Gore of an ice free North Pole by 2013, and Mark Surreze’s prediction of Arctic ice being in a ‘death spiral’, could still be true.
But the data, oh that rascally data, show there has been an increase in Arctic ice over the last three years. So Al Gore is wrong, Mark Surreze is wrong—and so is the PIOMAS graph.
So the global warming believers will fight because what else do they have? They’re clinging to the PIOMAS graph because they don’t have anything else to hang on to. It’s PIOMAS for North Pole ice or nothing for them.
Must suck to be them.
Anu,
Based on the voluminous and bizarre responses from the AGW faithful, it seems pretty clear that I have struck a nerve with this topic.
If you are correct and ice volume really is at a record low as PIOMAS suggests, then we should see the Arctic Basin severely depleted of ice within a few weeks. I will remind you of your untenable and thoughtless claims at that time.
Howard
Real Climate awaits you. With the record low ice volume PIOMAS reports, the Arctic should collapse any day now.
Here is a comparison of the ice volumes calculated from PIPS (properly including the concentration) and PIOMAS:
http://img811.imageshack.us/img811/5835/pipsvspiomas.png
Although there is obvious disagreement in the the first three years, since 2005 they match quite closely to each other as well as to the IceSat measurements. It certainly looks like validation of the recent performance of two independently derived ice volume models, quite contrary to what Steve has stated.
stevengoddard says:
June 11, 2010 at 7:42 pm
Yes, I’ve asked R. Gates two questions on the thread. He had claimed huge differences between three images, and I couldn’t find them. I asked him where the differences were …
…
Then he said the NIC didn’t use PIPS2.0. I asked for a citation …
…
I sure love the sound of crickets.
Here is a the full history of volumes and thickness as correctly derived from the PIPS model output:
http://img810.imageshack.us/img810/949/pipsallb.png
2010 so far in terms of both ice volume and thickness most closely matches 2007, except the previous year’s minimum volume is lower and the ice thickness appears to have peaked a couple weeks earlier this year. Hence we have a smaller average ice thickness, with a greater proportion of single year ice compared to 2007 as we enter the months of maximum melt, at least according to PIPS.
Phil. says:
June 11, 2010 at 8:15 am
~Polynyas confirmed:
http://rapidfire.sci.gsfc.nasa.gov/realtime/single.php?T101621620
http://rapidfire.sci.gsfc.nasa.gov/realtime/single.php?T101621440
from MODIS HQ:
http://rapidfire.sci.gsfc.nasa.gov/
from Near-Real-Time Level-2 Browse:
http://rapidfire.sci.gsfc.nasa.gov/realtime/2010163/
Regards
One caveat to the earlier plots. It is evident that PIPS changed the way they presented their maps of the model data at the beginning of 2002. Hence my calculated results up to that point are not directly comparable with more recent values.
Willis said:
“Then he said the NIC didn’t use PIPS2.0. I asked for a citation …”
____________________
Willis, Steve knows to whom I refer and I won’t get into the personal identities of posters on this site. If this person wants to reveal themselves they can, or you can just continue on with your drivel. I don’t much care either way. My whole basis in regards to Steve’s use of the PIPS 2.0 MODEL is that it is just that…a model, and not some actual measured amount, and that the CICE + HYCOM (or PIPS 3.0) model the more current version of what the Navy is using. The fact that NAVOCEANO has not released some scaled down version of PIPS 3.0 yet for public consumption is also none of my concern, as I’ve previously provided plenty of links that shows that this newer and more precise version of PIPS is what the Navy now uses at least internally. In short, my biggest issue is that Steve parades the PIPS 2.0 off as being data, when it is an old MODEL, and even we’ve heard from someone right on here WUWT (who would be in a position to know) that the NIC doesn’t put much credibility in the PIPS 2.0 data, though they specifically mentioned PIOMAS in their June update.
Ok Roger Nights explanation on the betting firm accepted, though you seem to have done another 4 posts on the subject, you must really enjoy it !
Getting back to the main topics I’m not convinced we will get a higher extent than 2009 as suggested but I think it even more unlikely we will be getting anything lower than 2007 unless the same factors in 2007 happen again, which will be unlikely. I think the minima will be between 2009 and 2008, the chances it being lower are greater than it being higher due to the warm weather over the Arctic over the winter meaning ice thicknesses are not as great as thought from models/data Steve has been kind enough to post.
This is pure gut feeling though, so likely to have a high level of leeway D
Andy
Anu says:
June 11, 2010 at 7:59 pm
I don’t know if this summer will be the new record minimum,
but if it is, it will be hilarious listening to you and others trying to “explain” it away…
Not nearly as hilarious as it will be listening to you and your fellow travelers try to explain away a further increase in minimum ice extent. I can just hear it now – “it was La Nina, or just the typical hand waving like “who cares, it’s the overall trend that matters, and it’s still down over the past 30 years”, “it’s the ice concentration that matters”, “that ice is all rotten”, “don’t worry, next year will be the biggest ice melt off EVAH” etc. etc.
The difference between skeptics and Warmists is that you need to see the ice decline because you think it bolsters your Warmist beliefs. It does help the propaganda campaign, I give you that.
For those who imagine that the Arctic ice is melting down rapidly, here is an animation of UIUC maps since May 1
BTW
There’s hot like hell:
FNL 00Z – 2010/06/11 Fri Jun 11 18:55:34 2010 – UTC
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/map/images/fnl/sfctmp_01.fnl.html
Regards
PPPPS: I once tried to bet, on a different matter, with a large British bookmaker, William Hill, and learned that it wouldn’t accept bets from Americans. I suspect this is the policy of other foreign bookies as well. Intrade is an exception, I guess because they aren’t a bookie (oddsmaker), but just a marketplace, and because they consider themselves an “event-prediction site.”
Every time I look at these satelite pictures of Greenland it appears that the Glaciers on Greenland are actually getting bigger. Look at the comparison provided. It looks like Greenland has increased in area in the last ten years. Is there anyone who can confirm/refute this?
stevengoddard says:
June 12, 2010 at 7:30 am
For those who imagine that the Arctic ice is melting down rapidly, here is an animation of UIUC maps since May 1
_____________
We don’t have to imagine Steve, nor do we need to rely on low res maps or outdated PIPS 2.0 models. The real data speak for themselves, and May saw a very rapid decline, as the National Ice Snow and Ice Data Center summed with this succinctly accurate quote:
“This rate of loss is the highest for the month of May during the satellite record.”
View the complete report from them here:
http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/index.html
You’re sure trying hard to convince us otherwise Steve, but the Arctic simply isn’t behaving as you might have thought it should with all that “thick ice” that PIPS 2.0 model is telling you is there. I’ll trust the experts on this one and the actual satellite data.
R. Gates,
Here is a video showing the massive meltdown in the Arctic since May 1. If you look really close, you might be able to find some ice loss.
Roger Knights says:
June 12, 2010 at 7:59 am
PPPPS: I once tried to bet, on a different matter, with a large British bookmaker, William Hill, and learned that it wouldn’t accept bets from Americans. I suspect this is the policy of other foreign bookies as well. Intrade is an exception, I guess because they aren’t a bookie (oddsmaker), but just a marketplace, and because they consider themselves an “event-prediction site.”
That’s because the US government uses the tactics of arresting CEOs of companies that take bets from US citizens, if they transit through US territories. Usually results in jail time and huge fines for ‘Racketeering’.
“This rate of loss is the highest for the month of May during the satellite record.”
Try measuring a 15 day moving average on sea ice loss using the IARC-JAXA data back to 2003 then tell me May 2010 was anything exceptional and I’ll straight out say your full of it. I’ve seen a number of cases where we lost more ice at earlier and later stages of the year. It might be the biggest ice loss during may over a very limited measurement period but it means jack.
Looking at a single month and saying it means anything, if your someone who claims to be an expert in this area, I would have to believe is being deliberately misleading or evasive.
We were always going to lose a lot of the late ice that we got at the end of winter this year. The 15 day moving average is now sitting pretty much where it always does and trending up ( towards less ice loss).
I can’t understand why you cant look at the data and figure this out unless deliberately choose not to.
Lets see what ice we lose in July.
Incidentally try running each year since 2003 on a 120 day moving average for daily ice loss. Quite interesting when you smooth out the daily/monthly locailised variables.
R. Gates
If PIOMAS is correct, we should see a huge meltdown this summer. They show the current anomaly double that in 2007. Based on that, we should have a huge new record minimum.
If you really believe in PIOMAS, then you are going to have to get firmly behind the idea of shattering the record low this summer. You can’t have it both ways, though no doubt you will try.
In your side by side comparison of Arctic sea ice from 06/09/1990 and 06/09/2010 you neglegted to mention that the later dated diagram includes historic snow cover data (in white) whereas the earlier photo does not (not white). This oversight gives the false impression, to the less informed, that there is much more “ice” in the 2010 cryosphere than there was in 2009. May I suggest that these diagrams be relabeled so that a misrepresentation does not occur?
Ignoring my first request for information (twice) and going directly to my request for a citaion, R. Gates says:
June 12, 2010 at 6:34 am
Well, Steve may know, but we don’t, and this is science. Either come up with a citation or not, but don’t try to say it’s a secret known only to the initiated. That doesn’t cut it.
And yes, we are aware that you don’t care much about citations either way … however, we do.
stevengoddard says:
June 12, 2010 at 9:39 am
R. Gates
If PIOMAS is correct, we should see a huge meltdown this summer. They show the current anomaly double that in 2007. Based on that, we should have a huge new record minimum.
If you really believe in PIOMAS, then you are going to have to get firmly behind the idea of shattering the record low this summer. You can’t have it both ways, though no doubt you will try
____________________
Steve,
I was projecting summer minimum of 4.5 million sq. km. back in March, during the much touted “bump up” in sea ice extent, when all the skeptics were saying “see, it’s recovering!”. I knew it was “thin ice” at best, more related to the negative AO, and had to melt fast, and so it did. PIOMAS is saying 4.7 million sq. km., so I’ve go no problem be firmly behind both their and my projections.
David said-June 12, 2010 at 9:36 am
“We were always going to lose a lot of the late ice that we got at the end of winter this year”
Well that’s always true every year, but why so fast this year?
Andy
We do have a regular poster from NSIDC, who (like me) is skeptical of PIOMAS graphs showing a record volume anomaly in 2010.
R. Gates says:
June 12, 2010 at 12:28 pm
“I was projecting summer minimum of 4.5 million sq. km. back in March…”
So if you are wrong what are you going to do/say on this site besides eat crow and feet?
Harsh! (Thanks for the info. I suspected there was some int’l. legal issue involved.)
Argh! That means the outcome will be a “draw” (especially if the result is “close” to 2009) and there will thus be intense efforts to spin its meaning in a warmist or coolist direction. But I suspect this is indeed the likeliest outcome, because it will deliver the maximum amount of aggravation. (This heuristic works for the stock market too.)
“David said-June 12, 2010 at 9:36 am
“We were always going to lose a lot of the late ice that we got at the end of winter this year”
Well that’s always true every year, but why so fast this year?
Andy”
Its not true that we get ice growth so late in the season every year. Again, download the data file from the IARC-JAXA site that Anthony has linked on the home page and put it in a spreadsheet
Then calculate daily ice loss, put in 15 day moving average to smooth out variables and then tell me that you cant see other years which had similar rates of ice loss at differing periods.
The ice is not going to melt at the same times at the same rates year in year out because the distribution of the thickness of the ice will vary. Examine the data a little more closely and you will see that very clearly. (and it make simple common sense too)
I would simply say this winter put down a lot of thinner ice late in the season which naturally was the first to go heading into spring and summer. The rate of loss has now slowed to around 60,000 square kilometers a day on a 15 day moving average which is in alignment with other years since 2003.
Again, the damage in 2007 occurred during July. Lets see if we see it “dropping like a rock” at this time.
R. Gates says:
June 12, 2010 at 12:28 pm
“I was projecting summer minimum of 4.5 million sq. km. back in March….”
Gates, have you seen the movie “Click”?
The guy with the remote control that can fast forward life?
Its almost like I wish I had a remote like that now, and could fast forward to September. But I dont want to miss the summer.
I hope you loose this competition, and Steve wins with a clear margin.
Everybody’s just taking for granted the image that Stephen posted is real. I went to the UIUC Cryosphere Today website and the images look nothing like the one Stephen posted above. Unless there was a rapid “de-concentration” of ice in the past three days, I’m inclined to say that image was doctored. Here are the actual images that tell a much different story:
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/NEWIMAGES/arctic.seaice.color.000.png
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/NEWIMAGES/arctic.seaice.color.004.png
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/NEWIMAGES/arctic.seaice.color.002.png
J.J.
Stephen used the low res pic for the comparison, because there is no hi-res pics available for 1990. In your lust to convict Stephen of wrong doing you managed to make yourself look quite foolish and an avid kool-aid drinker. I’m laughing at you right now.
J.J.
The “high resolution” pictures on the UIUC website are not very accurate. I’m writing it up for this week’s sea ice news.
stevengoddard says:
June 13, 2010 at 12:28 pm
J.J.
The “high resolution” pictures on the UIUC website are not very accurate. I’m writing it up for this week’s sea ice news.
I think this site has better pictures.
http://www.iup.physik.uni-bremen.de:8084/amsr/arctic_AMSRE_nic.png
stevengoddard says:
June 13, 2010 at 12:28 pm
J.J.
The “high resolution” pictures on the UIUC website are not very accurate. I’m writing it up for this week’s sea ice news.
That should be amusing,
stevengoddard says:
June 12, 2010 at 9:39 am
R. Gates
If PIOMAS is correct, we should see a huge meltdown this summer. They show the current anomaly double that in 2007. Based on that, we should have a huge new record minimum.
Let’s look at what PIOMAS actually shows, shall we ?
http://psc.apl.washington.edu/ArcticSeaiceVolume/images/BPIOMASIceVolumeAnomalyCurrent.png
The vertical scale is the Ice Volume Anomaly relative to 1979-2009, in units of 1000 km³
Comparing 5/30/10 with 5/30/07 (eyeballing the chart on the computer screen with the straight edge of printer paper), the anomaly is -9.8 and -7.3
I don’t know where Steve gets “they show the current anomaly double that in 2007”.
The increase in the anomaly since May 30, 2007 till May 30, 2010 is about 2.5
This represents 2,500 km³ of sea ice volume difference.
Now, look at the difference in sea ice area, since it is the area times the thickness that makes the volume – not the “extent”.
http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/seaice/extent/AMSRE_Sea_Ice_Extent.png
http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/seaice/extent/AMSRE_Sea_Ice_Area.png
The difference in area for this date in 2007 and 2010 is about 250,000 km²
At an average thickness of 2 meters, that would be 500 km³ of volume.
From the Sea_Ice_Area chart, the area for 5/30/10 is 9,900,000 km²
How much thinner would this sea ice have to be than it was in 2007 to make up for the other 2000 km³ of the sea ice volume difference ?
It comes to 20.2 centimeters thinner.
In the PIPS 2.0 thickness maps, the ColorBar breaks down thickness into 25 centimeter layers. Making the entire Arctic sea ice 20.2 centimeters thinner might not even change half the pixels – and the rest might go from one subtle shade of green to a slightly different subtle shade of green, for instance.
(It would be nice to see PIOMAS images of sea ice thickness, rather than just a single “anomaly” value for one date. Even if PIPS 2.0 is an older, less accurate model of ice thickness, they win extra points for supplying fun data to look at.)
If you really believe in PIOMAS, then you are going to have to get firmly behind the idea of shattering the record low this summer. You can’t have it both ways, though no doubt you will try.
Nice try, Steve. Nobody here is “predicting” a record shattering summer minimum. R. Gates is predicting 4.5 million sq. km of sea ice extent
I’m predicting less than in 2009 – which would be enough to show that the summer minimum “recovery” since 2007 is over.
The IARC-JAXA minimums are as follows:
Lowest point in 2007 – 4,267,656 sq km
Lowest point in 2008 – 4,718,594 sq km
Lowest point in 2009 – 5,249,844 sq km
Remember, you are on record:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/06/06/wuwt-arctic-sea-ice-news-8/
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 instant disclaimer. Sounds like Uncertainty and Doubt to me – maybe even Fear.
Still, your “prediction” is that the summer minimum will be near 2003 and 2006 – about 6 million sq km.
http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/daily_images/N_stddev_timeseries.png
You better hope you’re right about that 20.2 centimeters of ice thickness, because in September, I predict lots of grief for the “losers”.
It should be noted that the two predictions from PIOMAS (from different methods) of 4.7 million and 4.5 million are for *average* September ice extent, not minimum September ice extent. Thus in all likelihood they are predicting a record, or something very close to it, as the September minimum would be below the September average by somewhere around 250,000.
Still, the PIOMAS people, using their own data, are not predicting the record to be ‘smashed’, so it is difficult to understand why someone who accepted the PIOMAS model as being relatively accurate would need to do so.
Really? This was too much?
GeoFlynx says:
Your comment is awaiting moderation.
June 12, 2010 at 11:12 am
In your side by side comparison of Arctic sea ice from 06/09/1990 and 06/09/2010 you neglegted to mention that the later dated diagram includes historic snow cover data (in white) whereas the earlier photo does not (not white). This oversight gives the false impression, to the less informed, that there is much more “ice” in the 2010 cryosphere than there was in 2009. May I suggest that these diagrams be relabeled so that a misrepresentation does not occur?
Phil. says:
June 13, 2010 at 9:15 pm
“That should be amusing,”
Yeah almost as amusing as your whining on another thread about accusations against your honest that only you see. I have some cheese for you.