Sea Ice News #20

By Steve Goddard

Arctic Ice (red line above) has dropped just below my June forecast (dashed line.) Over the last two weeks, strong southerly winds reminiscent of 2007 have compacted and melted significant amounts of ice. The modified NSIDC image below shows ice loss over the last week, in red.

The break in the weather can be easily seen in the DMI temperature graph, as a sharp upwards spike two weeks ago.

The NCEP forecast calls for colder and calmer weather during the next two weeks, so ice loss should drop off quickly.

The DMI 30% concentration graph has already flattened, and is running even with 2009.

The modified NSIDC image below shows ice gain over 2007 in green, and loss in red.

PIOMAS continues to overestimate (red) ice loss by a substantial margin. Green shows areas where they underestimated ice loss.

It continues to look like my June forecast will be close to correct, though as we have seen – this contest is a crap shoot. It all depends on the wind.

Julienne Strove from NSIDC asked last week what it would take to be convinced of man’s influence. I will respond with a question of my own. What does it take to prove that changes in the wind are driven by changes in CO2?

Extra bonus : Does anyone see a familiar pattern (below) in Greenland temperatures? What year did satellites monitoring the Arctic come on line?

Enquiring minds want to know.

About these ads

271 thoughts on “Sea Ice News #20

  1. To paraphrase Kansas

    CO2 in the wind
    all we are is CO2 in the wind
    CO2 in the wind
    everything is CO2 in the wind

  2. While the extent of melt in 2010 looks similar to 2009, the re-freeze will likely be quite dramatic. If the cruise ship Clipper Adventurer now grounded in the north west passage cannot be freed soon, it may be there for some time. Ice breakers are apparently on route to free passengers, but is the ship itself is not freed it could become a semi permanent monument to AGW alarmism.

  3. What does it take to prove that changes in the wind are driven by changes in CO2?

    That depends on the agility of measuring ability to discern the trace effects of a trace gas.
    The bigger, and more important processes, are taking a back seat to pulling a signal rabbit out of a noisy hat.
    Right now the efforts directed at this trace gas amount to jumping over a suitcase full of money to get at a dime.

  4. The next Catlin expedition can base itself at the Clipper Adventurer winter resort, Konrad!

    Interesting following this particular year’s weather cycle, anyhow.

  5. During the last month both Polar Vortexes have broken down;

    http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/intraseasonal/z500_nh_anim.shtml

    http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/intraseasonal/z500_sh_anim.shtml

    and both poles have been taken over by High Pressure Areas:

    http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/intraseasonal/z200anim.shtml

    In addition, a large positive temperature anomaly formed in the upper atmosphere over the Southern Hemisphere, which is now dissipating:

    http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/intraseasonal/temp10anim.shtml

    Can anyone offer explanations for these phenomena?

    “Julienne Strove from NSIDC asked last week what it would take to be convinced of man’s influence.”

    Shouldn’t we have a better understanding of the basic mechanics of Earth’s climate system before assigning human influence to potentially natural occurrences?

  6. mrpkw says:
    August 29, 2010 at 3:31 pm
    Well, your forecast won’t be perfect, but it may still be the best !!

    mrpkw,

    Joe Bastardi accurately predicted a level between 2008-2009. I think he had the best forecast overall. Sorry Steve! :)

  7. Steve,
    in all your sea ice discussions you never mentioned (as far as I recall) that we had last winter a very strongly negative arctic oscillation (shift of the polar vortex). Such strongly negative values have not been shown up since those cold years of the sixties. See http://www.cpc.noaa.gov/products/precip/CWlink/daily_ao_index/month_ao_index.shtml
    The negative arctic oscillation has given to Eurasia a very cold winter, but not to North America. There, temperatures were not that cold, as a consequence the ice coverage on the Great Lakes was small, and Hudson Bay sea ice was thin. As a further consequence, Hudson bay sea ice was gone in June, not in July as in the year before, and as usual in summers following positive arctic oscillations in winter. Even ice of the Arctic Sea may have been thinner than usual at some places. I recall weeks last winter where West Greenland coastal temperatures have been higher than those in Germany.
    So you should ask Ms Strove from NSIDC, whether she thinks that strongly negative arctic oscillations will occur more frequently again, inspite of many claims that they where gone with the coming of the age of climate change.

  8. Steve,

    First you tell us it’s all down to wind then you show us a graph of temperature, which is it?

    Godthab Nuuk is at 64 degrees north is south Greenland, hardly representative.

  9. Extra bonus : Does anyone see a familiar pattern (below) in Greenland temperatures?
    Heavy upslope, slow downtrend, crash, heavy uplope (slow downtrend , crash?).
    Hmm.

  10. A drop of 50k yesterday. Given there are probably 15 days left in the melt, I still think 5.0 to 5.1. But if the melt season lasts a little longer this year 4.9 looks possible.

  11. The big news is the lack of ice pushed out the Fram Strait. That is where multi-year ice is lost and this year less was lost — a lot less.

    This has nothing to do with global warming and everything to do with wind and currents.

  12. Here is Joe’s forecast:

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/05/24/the-sea-ice-monster-its-a-scaly-thing/#comment-395961

    Joe Bastardi says:
    May 24, 2010 at 3:48 am
    I also predicted a smaller ice melt season for 08 and 09 ( the accuweather.com pro site has my archives). This year I have a major ice melt season forecasted though, even as global temps turn rapidly down. But dont fool yourself, this will be almost back to the 2007 min before its over this year. However a major recovery will occur in the coming two years so the min in 11 and 12 will be a greater extent than 09. NH ice is in a recovery, but in a herky jerk one step down , 2 steps up fashion. The real turn in this will come in 10-15 years when the AMO joins the PDO with cyclical cold in tandem.
    JB

  13. rbateman says:
    August 29, 2010 at 4:22 pm

    http://www.montrealgazette.com/news/Cruise+ship+runs+aground+Canadian+Arctic/3457291/story.html

    Maybe that’s what happened to the 2 mapping ships never seen again, for which the Investigaor & crew paid a similar price.
    The NW passage is not charted for safe passage, nor is it open for long, when it is open.
    Caveat Emptor on the sport of NW Passage dashing.
    ======================
    “Fools rush in where angels fear to tread.”
    Alexander Pope

  14. u.k.(us) says:
    August 29, 2010 at 4:59 pm

    The cruise ship operators are insisting that Canada supply a permanently stationed helicopter for rescue purposes. Supplied by Canada, of course! A sense of entitlement becomes swagger…then hubris!

  15. Steve,

    Your Greenland temperature plot doesn’t seem to have had all the appropriate adjustments made to it. How unscientific of you.

    Mike

  16. Jim Barker says:
    August 29, 2010 at 3:38 pm

    HEY! Shouldn’t that be “(coal)dust in the wind”?

  17. bubbagyro says:
    August 29, 2010 at 5:12 pm
    u.k.(us) says:
    August 29, 2010 at 4:59 pm

    “The cruise ship operators are insisting that Canada supply a permanently stationed helicopter for rescue purposes. Supplied by Canada, of course! A sense of entitlement becomes swagger…then hubris!”

    Hope all those fools get charged $10,000 each for the rescue and trouble to the government to save them on that unnecessary cruise into danger.

  18. More about the Clipper Adventurer:

    http://www.montrealgazette.com/news/Stranded+cruise+ship+passengers+evacuated+Edmonton/3457419/story.html

    “About 200 guests and crew members were on the trip called ‘Into the Northwest Passage.’” LOL, they got their money’s worth!!

    “The Clipper Adventurer operated by Mississauga, Ont.-based Adventure Canada became grounded on an uncharted rock shortly after 7 p.m. local time Friday. The ship ran aground in three metres of water just a day before the Arctic expedition was to come to an end in Edmonton.”

    3 METERS OF WATER?? Who was the captain, Hazelwood??

  19. Werner Weber says:
    August 29, 2010 at 4:35 pm
    Steve,
    in all your sea ice discussions you never mentioned (as far as I recall) that we had last winter a very strongly negative arctic oscillation (shift of the polar vortex). Such strongly negative values have not been shown up since those cold years of the sixties. See http://www.cpc.noaa.gov/products/precip/CWlink/daily_ao_index/month_ao_index.shtml

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

    Your recollection is not good:

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/03/31/arctic-sea-ice-about-to-hit-normal-what-will-the-news-say/

    Chris
    Norfolk, VA, USA

  20. Have to admit I was for this year wrong as I though that this year would keep track with 2005. However can still play with 2011 forecast hahaha bet it will be the death knell of AGW this time I hope LOL

  21. Werner Weber says:
    August 29, 2010 at 4:35 pmThe negative arctic oscillation has given to Eurasia a very cold winter, but not to North America. There, temperatures were not that cold, as a consequence the ice coverage on the Great Lakes was small and Hudson Bay sea ice was thin.

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

    Everything in this statement is completely wrong.

    To pick and chose one of those errors:

    Maybe you should ask Lake Erie that question of “small ice coverage”.

    Size matters….

    http://www.goerie.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20100210/NEWS02/302099905

    Chris
    Norfolk, VA, USA

  22. This has nothing to do with global warming and everything to do with wind and currents.

    For a single year’s ice coverage? Pretty much. Helping people understand the difference between short-term fluctuations and long-term trends is a long-term trial with short-term concentration spans.

  23. Werner Weber says:
    August 29, 2010 at 4:35 pm

    I recall weeks last winter where West Greenland coastal temperatures have been higher than those in Germany.

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

    So???

    There were times during the last winter when northern Florida in the US was colder than Fairbanks Alaska!

    Big ******* deal.

    Not outside the envelope of natural variability…variability that has been “variableing” [lol] for about 4.6 billion years now.

    Chris
    Norfolk, VA, USA

  24. Stephan

    Given the unpredictable variability in weather, +/- 10% seems to be about as good as anyone could possibly hope for on a long term prediction basis.

  25. “Julienne Strove from NSIDC asked last week what it would take to be convinced of man’s influence.”

    As with other earth-science questions of great controversy, such as,

    a) plate tectonics;
    b) channeled scablands of Eastern Washington;
    c) insert your own favorite;

    . . . it will take a rational mechanism with enough energy to cause the changes seen.

  26. CRS, Dr.P.H. says:
    August 29, 2010 at 5:28 pm
    3 METERS OF WATER?? Who was the captain, Hazelwood??
    ===========================================
    It was a really really big rock, about the size of an island. ;-)

    Down here we call it running aground!

  27. “Julienne Strove from the NSIDC asked last week what it would take to be convinced of man’s influence”

    1. A continuation of warming for the next 3-4 decades where the PDO/AMO cycle phases predict cooling (together with a solar minimum).

    2. A correlation between deep time palaeoclimate global temperature and CO2. This is totally absent over the last half billion years – while CO2 has erratically declined due to plants, temperature has shown a stable attractor of 22C, with short dips to 12C at 150 MYr intervals (we are in one now allowing a cherry-picked illusion of temperature decline).

    3. In more recent ice core reconstructions (e.g. Vostok) evidence that CO2 changes precede temperature changes implying that CO2 drives temperature (the reverse of this is the reality).

    4. A physical demonstration that CO2 overwhelms all other atmospheric forcers of heat budget such as water vapour and clouds.

    5. Failing 1-4, a ticket to a parallel universe in which the initial shuffle and deal of the physical constant pack of cards at the big bang was such that the properties of CO2 and H2O were exchanged.

  28. “Julienne Strove from the NSIDC asked last week what it would take to be convinced of man’s influence”

    Good Lord, what a question to ask.

    I can’t imagine how pompous someone would have to be, to actually believe that we know enough to predict anything, much less know enough to tell what affect a trace gas has on our atmosphere. Almost every day something comes out to contradict something that we though was true the day before.

  29. “Julienne Strove from the NSIDC asked last week what it would take to be convinced of man’s influence”

    …how about some honest, rigorous scientific investigation based upon sound, repeatable methodology, exhaustive statistical analysis, independent replication, honest peer review and widespread availability of codes and data?

    Not much to ask for….

  30. savethesharks says:
    August 29, 2010 at 6:20 pm

    When the shark bites…..

    from the same article concerning an almost frozen over lake Erie,

    “- While most of our lake-effect snow comes from westerly winds over Lake Erie, some of it comes from Lake Huron, which is mostly still open, LaPlante said”

  31. After the last two days’ brutal losses, I was pretty down on this year’s chances of staying above 5.1e6 km^2. However, the preliminary JAXA number for today shows a gain of 2500 km^2. We’ll see if the gain is true when the final number is posted tomorrow.

    Current extent is predicting a bit over 5.0e6 km^2 again. I’ll have to take a look to see how the other statistics play out now that we (preliminarily) have a day of gain.

    -Scott

  32. Werner Weber Dec 13 coldest temp ever recorded in Edmonton by a wide margin.

    CRS, Dr. P.H. Hazelwood was not required on the bridge and the Coast Guard saw the ship go off course but it was not their mandate to report.

  33. “Julienne Strove from NSIDC asked last week what it would take to be convinced of man’s influence. I will respond with a question of my own. What does it take to prove that changes in the wind are driven by changes in CO2?”

    Answer a question with a (ridiculous) question? It was perfectly answerable, so why the dodging?

  34. CRS, Dr.P.H. says:
    August 29, 2010 at 7:53 pm

    “Julienne Strove from the NSIDC asked last week what it would take to be convinced of man’s influence”

    …how about some honest, rigorous scientific investigation based upon sound, repeatable methodology, exhaustive statistical analysis, independent replication, honest peer review and widespread availability of codes and data?

    Not much to ask for….

    Would that apply to both sides?

  35. Scott says:
    August 29, 2010 at 8:23 pm

    After the last two days’ brutal losses, I was pretty down on this year’s chances of staying above 5.1e6 km^2. However, the preliminary JAXA number for today shows a gain of 2500 km^2. We’ll see if the gain is true when the final number is posted tomorrow.

    So we will, the fragmented ice shifts easily and areas of 30% or more extent can easily spread enough to counter the ‘melt’, for as long as it stays above 15%. Sea ice extent variation is not only due to melt but also spread. Tomorrow, or later we may see the wind compacting ice, giving a large ‘melt’number. The people here should not be so hung-up about sea ice extent and worry more about sea ice volume. It is the amount of ice by volume that will determine reality. I’m prepared to wait for Cryosat and in the meantime stare at the cube of ice in my glass of white still melting; my wife’s ice is gone, she prefers crushed ice. Why does that make me think of the arctic?

  36. baffled,

    Much of the Arctic is forecast to be between -5 and -10C during the next two weeks.

    There is another behaviour of ice you are not mentioning – called freezing.

  37. baffled24 says:
    August 29, 2010 at 9:27 pm

    So we will, the fragmented ice shifts easily and areas of 30% or more extent can easily spread enough to counter the ‘melt’, for as long as it stays above 15%. Sea ice extent variation is not only due to melt but also spread. Tomorrow, or later we may see the wind compacting ice, giving a large ‘melt’number. The people here should not be so hung-up about sea ice extent and worry more about sea ice volume. It is the amount of ice by volume that will determine reality. I’m prepared to wait for Cryosat and in the meantime stare at the cube of ice in my glass of white still melting; my wife’s ice is gone, she prefers crushed ice. Why does that make me think of the arctic?

    Yes, I’m well aware of the possible behaviors of the ice, as I’ve been following this quite a while. Did you see me use the word “melt” anymore in my comment?…no, you didn’t. Funny that you mention melt and not freezing though…

    And yes, we’re hung up on extent because that is all that’s currently available right now…what do you want us to do? Also, if I recall correctly, the experts (and non-experts too) threw a real fit in 2007 when the extent dropped so drastically. As for Cryosat, I’m afraid that mission failed back in 2005. Instead, I’m waiting for Cryosat-2 data to start coming in…but it’s not going to be useful for comparison purposes until several years of data are available, as a baseline needs established.

    As to your glass analogy, is that why you think the ice extent is decreasing, because it’s been “crushed”? If so, what does this have to do with CAGW?

    -Scott

  38. Man’s influence:

    Julienne might want to read police reports of the recent arrest of Paris Hilton in Las Vegas. Apparently there was a very suggestive vapor release from her boyfriend’s Cadillac that she was in, that caught the attention of a motorcycle police officer, that drew him to the SUV for a vehicle stop for weed, that turned into a coke arrest.

    In this case the arresting officers were following evidence of something in the wind that was not right, that led to an arrest because something was not right.

    You might ask Julienne what evidence, whether in the wind or not, that she is following to lead her to ask the question she did. The people developing the global warming models need to know this information so that might actually have an accurate backcast, not to mention a forecast, of what’ s happening to the weather.

    You might also ask her why its so cold in the US in August? And why SH issues of cold are paramount today.

    Maybe she should give the horse she is riding a physical.

  39. baffled24 says: “Answer a question with a (ridiculous) question?”

    The question in response is no more ridiculous than the original. If the question in response is ridiculous, than so is the original. Am I, therefore, supporting Mr. Goddard’s question as reasonable? Well, no. It’s ridiculous, as the original question is one of the oldest (and quite possibly the oldest) ridiculous questions in the book. I strongly suspect Mr. Goddard of applying a rather Socratic rhetorical technique to point this out; although if Ms. Strove is over literal minded and unskilled in the fine art (it appears it is no longer a standard part of scientific training; more’s the pity) she will miss the point entirely.

    “It was perfectly answerable, so why the dodging?”

    What will it take to be convinced of the boogyman/fairies/gods living in my socks? No dodging.

  40. John F. Hultquist says:
    August 29, 2010 at 6:35 pm

    Yes, some may infer that but I did indicate in my previous comment that the ship was grounded (as is ran aground). However having updated information on the ships location, I would consider that it is likely to be re-floated before any of this winters ice comes close.

  41. Policyguy at 10:28pm August 29th said:

    “You might also ask her why its so cold in the US in August?”

    Where do you live? HPRCC shows an overwhelming majority of the US at above normal temps for the month of August to date. Roughly half the US has seen temps >2F above normal.

  42. What I see year after year in these plots is the rate of increase/decline is rather consistent, but the starting points very some as to the maximum and minimum. There should be no surprise that year to year variations happen, but if anyone is suggesting there is a doomsday signal in data begun in 1979, I just gotta say – STFU, that’s not nearly enough data over time.

    Case in point: Nobody within this readership can say from one year to the next what the values should be. We can only conjecture on what the values are. We can’t even poo poo the trends because we honestly don’t know what the trends as of 2010 should be.

    Playing “got your nose” with all this data is pointless – we are only gathering useful information for a time in the future when trending will be a viable use of our data. For now we should look at it and say “hnnn – whaddya know? It’s never done that before. I wonder if it’s important.” That can’t be answered because we haven’t gathered enough data yet.

  43. Extent is up but area on Cryosphere is down so the winds Steve mentions definitely playing a big part now. The Low and High pressure areas have swapped positions recently.

    Andy

  44. Any sane person would look at Arctic Ocean temperatures thru the year – just rising above freezing in summer – and conclude that the NH is dangerously close to the next ice age.

  45. Travis says:
    August 29, 2010 at 10:46 pm
    Policyguy at 10:28pm August 29th said:

    “You might also ask her why its so cold in the US in August?”

    Where do you live? HPRCC shows an overwhelming majority of the US at above normal temps for the month of August to date. Roughly half the US has seen temps >2F above normal.

    —————

    Travis

    I’m in northern California. Normally we have a dozen or more plus 100 days.

    This year we had about four. This last week end we went to soccer tournaments in blankets with morning temps in the low 60’s.

    Where are you??

  46. and yet, more than 100 years after it was first proposed, nobody has disproved AGW. What’s wrong with all you deniers?…it should be so easy….unless the theory is true of course, but surely that can’t be it…

  47. “Where do you live? HPRCC shows an overwhelming majority of the US at above normal temps for the month of August to date. Roughly half the US has seen temps >2F above normal. ”

    I can’t speak for the US, but here in Canada we’ve had the furnace on for the last few days in what is supposed to be not just summer but one of the warmest summers since records began. It’s no surprise to me that people are rebelling against ‘global warming’ when their experience is so far from the scare stories the ‘scientists’ are telling them.

  48. jt says:
    August 29, 2010 at 11:51 pm
    and yet, more than 100 years after it was first proposed, nobody has disproved AGW. What’s wrong with all you deniers?…it should be so easy….unless the theory is true of course, but surely that can’t be it…

    What theory? No-one has yet proven the theory of CO² v AGW. You need to read more. Proof means means that when they run their climate / weather model they don’t breakdown after 12 hours, Proof means that when they do a backcast and a forecast they are both correct to 0.1°C (20%), proof is that when they use their clilmate model to predict bar-b-q summers they actually happen, proof is that when they predict warm winters we don’t get buried in 6 feet of snow.

  49. Lets get some (JAXA) numbers on Extent

    Daily: ___________2007___ to___ 2010__&__(2009__2008)
    Aug24-25_______ -27,967 _____ -36,093___(-44,375_121,562
    Aug25-26_______ -29,218 _____ -40,438___(-35,781__71,354
    Aug26-27_______ -44,532 _____ -78,437___(-14,219__44,688
    Aug27-28_______ -49,062 _____ -53,125___(-23,437__15,146
    Aug28-29_______ -60,000 _____ – ?__?___(-20,313__47,136
    Aug29-30_______ -48,750 _____ – ?__?___(-46,250__26,094
    Aug30-31_______ -_ 9,063 ____ – ?__?___(-40,468__60,156
    Aug31-S1_______ -_5,156 ____ – ?__?___(-23,438 __72,188
    2010 versus MINIMUMs (K=1,000) 2007= 985 K / 2009=_58 K / 2008=639 K

    By contrast, the Bremen Graphs for this same satellite (AMSR-E) RARELY show any difference with 2008, though. 2008 slipped ahead with the 121 K melt. Then there are the SSMI-based sites. But for something NEW: The Topaz model (predicting the next week or so) shows BOTH AMSR-E and SSMI on the same chart (2nd line of Graphs from the top), the only place I’ve seen this: http://arctic-roos.org/forecasting-services/topaz/topaz-model-forecast Note the AMSR-E turned UP today but NOT SSMI (although on the Norsex Quartet, SSMI was up the previous 2.Part of this is the exceptionnal Scattering of the ICE, with so much near the 15% cutoff that it wildly swings Up & Down ).

    … For the FUTURE, the only really important Map one is the PIPs2.0 ICE-DRIFT Map http://www7320.nrlssc.navy.mil/pips2/idis.html – – and the prediction is: for the Basin to continue to Empty, depite the CLOUDS.

    If my Sea Ice Outlook comes out in a few days: it was written on the 16th: I added a bunch of other possible Forecasts, all based on the Ratio of the EL NINO strengths: 2010 to 2007 = 1.8/1.1 – – – BUT I MISSED THE MOST IMPORTANT :
    the Time-lag I forecasted = time for the La Nina to burn off all the Aerial Moisture left by the El Nino=Hot=WET=Clouds .
    – – I make 2007’s lull about 40 days from Early May 2007; so as 2010’s Clouds began about June 29 thus add 40 days x 1.8/1.1 = 65.5 days = SUNNY any day without a big Storm, from September 2. But there’s a big storm — which, of course, will increase Ice Export. The REAL stunner to ME, was 2010’s recent 76 K loss – – Cloud Maps showed the whole Basin save near the Canadian Arctic Islands, just compleely COVERED. That melt included NO SUN at all ! The ESRL Map: http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/map/images/fnl/mslp_01.fnl.html – – suggests Today’s Reverse Melt reflects a Real, if brief, BACKWARDS push – – part of the Canadian High moved EAST of Iceland & the backside of the Clockwise Flow pushed Ice back North. But WetterZentrale suggest the Dipole returns http://www.wetterzentrale.de/topkarten/tkecmnh.html

  50. jt
    let me give you a theory. There a people living on Mars. Prove it, go on! Sound familiar.

    AGW is true, go on prove it. Sound familiar? You are clearly not a scientist. Perhaps a young greeny beeny?

  51. jt says:
    August 29, 2010 at 11:51 pm
    “and yet, more than 100 years after it was first proposed, nobody has disproved AGW. What’s wrong with all you deniers?…it should be so easy….unless the theory is true of course, but surely that can’t be it…”

    Simples…

    From Dr Jones, UEA CRU – “No statistically significant global warming for the last 15 years…”

    Mauna loa – CO2 increased from about 360 to 390 ppm over the last 15 years.

    Therefore:-
    1) CO2 has no effect on global temperature.
    2) CO2 has an effect on temperature, but natural climate oscillations overwhelm this weak effect.

    Just like in the 1970’s, when climate ‘scientists’ where certain we were heading for an ice age, today’s climatologists fear we are going to enter a hot-house. Both teams have been fooled by the vagaries of the deterministic chaos which drives our climate. They know that climate is a non-linear system, yet they continue to use meaningless linear trends. Turbulent systems are not predictable to any degree of accuracy sufficient to be useful for long-term planning.

  52. MarkG says:
    I can’t speak for the US, but here in Canada we’ve had the furnace on for the last few days in what is supposed to be not just summer but one of the warmest summers since records began.

    Same in South Colorado, last three nights! Summer is over before it’s over.

  53. Roger Knights says:
    August 30, 2010 at 1:13 am
    Just to clarify: It made it through the Northeast passage

    Nowadays, the “Northeast passage” it’s called “Northern Sea route”. Please check it out at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northern_Sea_Route. But you are right in the sense that it was not through the Northwest passage, as some might be led to believe.

    Ecotretas

  54. “HR says:
    August 29, 2010 at 4:38 pm
    Steve,
    First you tell us it’s all down to wind then you show us a graph of temperature, which is it?”

    The fact that arctic ice extend looks like a sine-curve, with 14 millions square km in April and 5 in September, is of course due to temperature. An anomalie in temperature therefore can influence the freezing/melting/breaking off. Since summer 2011 will be cooler than summer 2010, that indicates more ice next year.
    But for short term changes (days and weeks) wind is more important.

  55. These Arctic sea ice posts are always interesting but I still can’t see quite what all the fuss is about. If all the Arctic north of Iceland was frozen solid or if there was no ice in the Arctic at all, I would remain unconvinced that it hadn’t happened before and also unconvinced that mankind’s fairly trivial emissions of a useful trace gas was more responsible for ice levels in the Arctic than the activities of herds of elephants in Africa.

    The warmists coming on here for an argument might like to answer my question.

    At present in the UK we have around 3000 wind turbines which despoil the natural beauty of our landscape, shred large numbers of birds, adversely affect the quality of life of those who live near them. The electricity they produce is ridiculously expensive compared to fossil fuels or nuclear. It is also extremely variable and unreliable and requires not only hydro & pumped storage installations but a number of gas turbine generators to be kept on “spinning standby” to balance fluctuations in output to try to prevent the grid from being unbalanced leading to massive blackouts. The cost of this and the infrastructure needed to connect the wind turbines to the grid and the equipment needed to rectify the fluctuations in frequency is absolutely enormous. The output of all 3000 turbines contributed on average just 0.8% of the electricity needed in the UK between January and June 2010.

    Note, all of this is fact and can easily be checked, it is all stuff which is well understood (which is more than can be said for the behavious of sea ice). There is no need to debate whether ice is old or new, thick or thin, rotten or whatever.

    My question is, what would it take for me (and all the other sceptics – especially those in the UK who are paying for all this with hugely inflated electricity bills) to be convinced that it will be a sensible idea to build another 10,000 wind turbines as a matter of urgency to save the planet from some shroud waving doom scenario dreamed up by a bunch of rent seeking “scientists” using blatantly cherry picked & fiddled data and corrupt methods which they take good care to hide from those wishing to replicate their results?

    For myself, I have to confess that the total disappearance of sea ice in the Arctic wouldn’t even come close.

    The “war against global warming” is actually a “war against the poor”.

  56. I keep saying- the theory of the greenhouse effect violates the laws of thermodynamics so that in itself disproves AGW.

  57. “Julienne Strove from NSIDC asked last week what it would take to be convinced of man’s influence.”

    Julienne,
    I’m sure most people here, as well as the IPCC, would welcome seeing any form of evidence of AGW.

  58. “Julienne Strove from NSIDC asked last week what it would take to be convinced of man’s influence. I will respond with a question of my own. What does it take to prove that changes in the wind are driven by changes in CO2?”

    Well under my hypothesis changes in CO2 should indeed effect a miniscule change in the latitudinal positioning of all the air circulation systems by speeding up the hydrological cycle to negate the effects of the CO2.

    However natural variability is so huge in comparison due to the constantly varying rate of energy release by the oceans and by the variations in solar activity apparently affecting the intensity of the polar oscillations that the CO2 effect would be unmeasurable.

    Thus IF the CO2 effect were significant then one could indeed (in theory) see greater frequency of warm air flows into the Arctic.

    However one often sees more warm air flowing into the Arctic anyway when the polar high pressure cells migrate equatorwards because that very migration leaves room near the poles for low pressure to develop.

    So also under my hypothesis what one gets with a quiet sun is significantly colder mid latitudes as the enhanced polar high pressure cells move over them but more warm air flowing into the Arctic. One could therefore logically argue that even the 2007 melt was a result of overall global cooling during the recent period of solar inactivity. The faster flow of warmth into the Arctic Circle actually enhances the rate of energy loss to space and increases any cooling trend. The sun is too low in the Arctic even during summer for open water to absorb more energy as the AGW lobby proposes. Instead open water in the Arctic is a gaping vent for energy leaving to space. The simple cooling effect of increased evaporation under cold dry air is enough to swamp any extra solar input.

    Incidentally I saw recently that even while the northern continents were in the grip of the LIA the ice cover in the Arctic Circle was not much different to what we see now. Not really surprising since most of the energy in the Arctic Ocean is provided by warm water flowing in past Spitzbergen and I see no claims that the Gulf Stream declined significantly during the LIA. All that happened was that the blocking polar highs prevented oceanic air from entering the continental interiors so regularly and provoked more longitudinal flows of air just as we have seen recently with Russia’s heat wave and the enhanced Pakistan rainfall.

    All such observations appear to be confirming the general gist of my New Climate Model. Indeed it was constructed with just such observations in mind.

  59. This one is for Julienne

    Except regular cyclical pattern, where exactly is the sign of human influence? And is it me, or Arctic temps are going downhill for future decades again?

    Gothab Nuuk looks strange, but it is not far from the Greenland average:

  60. I cannot understand why anyone should get excited even if ice extent falls to new lows.

    During the winter the ice extent was above average and now it is maybe a bit below average. So over the year the average is – well pretty average!

  61. Yo Travis, dont try to bs this Or. peach grower about temperature. We will be up to two weeks late picking this year because of low temperatures during our August ripening. That is if the rains hold off long enough that we dont lose the late peaches.

  62. Unbelievable…You’all are too smart for your own good & have more fun theorizing & trying to out duel each other than stating & commenting on real time facts…The Headline & discussion should be about the RISE in extent posted by JAXA…!! Real Time weather Data seems to escape most of you. Looking at the long Range GFS back on the 23rd & commented on by myself still looks to be panning out as Forcasted..I said that it looks like a leveling out by the end of the month & then down to a drip after the 6th but that was a wild guess & I am looking for more expert opinion on F-casted & real time Data!!..I do enjoy your comments but lets get back to the Basics sometimes…Thank you very much….

  63. Ok, so there was no recovery of sea ice extent this year, and thus the declining long-time trend is continuing. Will the WUWT policy be to continue waiting for the recovery in the coming year as well? I have a gut feeling some of the most keen observers here actually might want to move on with the discussion.

  64. Seriously, the type of global warming denial that many of you (I will not give specific names) have resorted to is really starting to just sound really stupid. A few years ago, at least you could form coherent arguments, rather than just stating without fair analysis something to the effect of “Co2 has never driven temperature” after massive cherry-picking or the same old “temperature leads Co2″ argument which has been debunked multiple times by many different scientists…

  65. First growth on the 29th of August.

    Very small, a few thousand k. But growth at 5.3. The downward trend will continue for another couple of weeks, but should slow considerably.

  66. Martin Brumby says:
    August 30, 2010 at 1:48 am
    These Arctic sea ice posts are always interesting but I still can’t see quite what all the fuss is about.

    blatantly cherry picked & fiddled data and corrupt methods

    Martin,
    You left out the part about “data” from computer models written for the purpose of “demonstrating the effects of catastrophic anthropogenic global warming” being offerd as “proof.”

    Global warming is the war to extend the ranks of the poor, transfer as much power to government as possible, and concentrate wealth into the hands of an elite few.

  67. RE: Policyguy August 29, 2010 at 11:38 pm, johnmcguire August 30, 2010 at 4:10 am:

    Policyguy, I live in western Washington state. We’ve had a cooler summer interrupted by two spells of record heat, so things have averaged out here.

    johnmcguire, I’m not trying to BS anything or anyone. I wasn’t trying to deny that it has been cooler than normal anywhere in the US (and I was not making any statements about Canada either). I said that a vast majority of the US is above or significantly above normal temperatures this month and backed up my claim with real data. I did not make any alarmist claims; I just stated a fact. I did not claim it was HOT everywhere, or that everywhere has been above normal every day this month. I am sorry for your troubles, especially given that I am such a fan of peaches, but I’d appreciate it if you did not accuse me of BSing things that I am clearly not making up.

  68. We now have the Great Heat Engines of the Atlantic pumping warm ocean heat into the upper atmosphere. Three maybe four hurricanes at the same time.

    My thoughts are that the heat from the Atlantic will be directly moved to the cold of Space. This will have the result of lowering future Atlantic temperatures, and, therefore, decreasing the Arctic temperatures. This will cause increased ice buildup and a colder, wetter winter for North America and Europe.

    In general, only the “open” ocean can easily give up heat; therefore, as the ice build increases, the evaporation zone(at the edge of the ice field) moves further south into warmer waters. Warmer water evaporation, more snow, cold rain, etc.

  69. The final days of the 2010 melt season are here and the horse race is on.

    2010 is the 9th year in the JAXA record. How will it place?

    Today 2010 has the Goddard Minimum beat. Wow!!! I had no idea if Steve’s “Theory of Increasing Sea Ice” would be supported by the data or not when this all started but I am quite surprised that his theory was busted… in August!

    Let’s look at the standing.

    2003 Min.: 6,041,250: Busted 8/14/10
    2004 Min.: 5,784,688: Busted 8/19/10
    2006 Min.: 5,781,719: Busted 8/19/10
    2002 Min: 5,646,875: Busted 8/22/10
    Goddard Min: 5,500,000: Busted 8/26/10
    2005 Min: 5,315,156: ????

    This puts 2010 in the top five lowest sea ice extents in the JAXA record and it’s still August.

  70. Paul J says:
    August 30, 2010 at 4:08 am

    I cannot understand why anyone should get excited even if ice extent falls to new lows.

    During the winter the ice extent was above average and now it is maybe a bit below average. So over the year the average is – well pretty average!
    ———–

    Paul,

    The only problem with your post is that sea ice extent in the arctic never went above average in the winter of 2010. You may have gotten this misunderstanding from all the excitement earlier in the year when ice extent increased enough to come closer to the average than it has in quite some time but it never hit the average let alone exceeded it.

  71. Well the warm southerly winds that are melting all the ice in the arctic have spelled the end to the pool of water I have been watching on the north pole web cam this summer. Its been gone for the last week , i expected to see it reappear again due to the warmer weather , but no , it is stubbornly frozen solid , this is the bit of north pole ice we can see with our own eyes , and its not doing what its supposed to be doing !! And by the way , its the last day of Summer here in the UK but warm summer weather stopped at least a month ago with many days cool enough for you could see your breath in the air , warming it aint !!

  72. stevengoddard says:
    August 29, 2010 at 9:44 pm

    baffled,

    Much of the Arctic is forecast to be between -5 and -10C during the next two weeks.

    There is another behaviour of ice you are not mentioning – called freezing.

    The melt will continue from below in the warmer water, any snowfall will act as a blanket, reducing ice growth from the air temperature.

  73. “HR

    All of the long term Greenland/Iceland plots show approximately the same pattern.”

    “approximately” the same “pattern”. utterly precise.

  74. Nightvid Cole says:
    August 30, 2010 at 5:33 am (Edit)

    Seriously, the type of global warming denial that many of you (I will not give specific names) have resorted to is really starting to just sound really stupid.”

    Yes. More important is this. The important skeptical arguments ( about sensitivity) get drown out by the increasing cacophany of spurious chattering. All the bandwidth is sucked up by shallowest most misleading voices.

  75. John Marshall,

    “I keep saying- the theory of the greenhouse effect violates the laws of thermodynamics so that in itself disproves AGW.”

    I’m sure you do. But you would have to do prove it in a peer reviewed paper and get everyone else to agree with you. Merely saying it does not disprove anything.

  76. Steven Mosher says:
    August 30, 2010 at 9:10 am

    “Yes. More important is this. The important skeptical arguments ( about sensitivity) get drown out by the increasing cacophany of spurious chattering. All the bandwidth is sucked up by shallowest most misleading voices.”

    One of the lamest arguements I have read in awhile. Please describe how much “bandwidth” there is and how much the “spurious chattering” is using so I may evaluate if any remains. I would label your arguement more of a whine or an excuse rather than anything constructive or responsible.

  77. Dr A Burns says: “. . . evidence . . .”

    This is the only complete and correct answer to the question; which is what makes the question ridiculous. In point of fact, however, what Ms. Strove is actually looking for as an answer is predictive specificity of the evidence to convince, so that she can go data mining for it – which is what makes it a trap. A very old and very well understood trap.

    A complete collection of such traps can be found in the tool bag of – Apologetics.

    Steven Mosher says: “All the bandwidth is sucked up by shallowest most misleading voices.”

    This is why God invented peer review.

  78. Policyguy says:
    August 29, 2010 at 11:38 pm

    Travis says:
    August 29, 2010 at 10:46 pm
    Policyguy at 10:28pm August 29th said:

    “You might also ask her why its so cold in the US in August?”

    Where do you live? HPRCC shows an overwhelming majority of the US at above normal temps for the month of August to date. Roughly half the US has seen temps >2F above normal.

    —————

    Travis

    I’m in northern California. Normally we have a dozen or more plus 100 days.

    This year we had about four. This last week end we went to soccer tournaments in blankets with morning temps in the low 60′s.

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

    I’ve got to say I agree with this. Kansas City is well below our “normal” number of 100 or even 90 degree days. I’ve lived within 20 miles of where I do now for the past 40 years, and there’s no way we are 2-4 degrees above “normal” as suggested by the link Travis supplied to the HPRCC data.

    A coworker at the office was commenting on having to wear a jacket during his morning motorcycle ride in, in August! Unheard of.

    Anecdotal, I know. A small sample area, I know.

  79. Proof means that when they do a backcast and a forecast they are both correct to 0.1°C (20%),

    That reminds me of another one that I would have posted when Julienne Strove asked about what it would take to be convinced of man’s influence.

    If scientists could accurately model the climate of the PAST, I would be more inclined to believe convinced of their arguments in general

  80. Virveli says:
    August 30, 2010 at 5:30 am

    Ok, so there was no recovery of sea ice extent this year, and thus the declining long-time trend is continuing. Will the WUWT policy be to continue waiting for the recovery in the coming year as well? I have a gut feeling some of the most keen observers here actually might want to move on with the discussion.

    Again, people are assuming this year is going to finish below 2009 and are asking these questions. Yes, 2010 is trailing 2009 by ~180000 km^2 as of Aug 29, but it’s still above 2009’s minimum by ~103000 km^2, so there’s still a very slight possibility of it staying above 2009 (there’s also the possibility of it going below it in just a couple days too, LOL).

    Given the strong El Nino this year coupled with the fact that 3 consecutive years of extent growth have not been previously recorded, I’d say that staying above 5e6 km^2 isn’t so bad (and there’s roughly a 50% of this still happening). I’m sure many people will disagree with me there.

    On the other hand, where are these massive losses that the CAGW experts have been predicting? Shouldn’t we be lower than 2007 by now…we’ve had 3 years to go below it, right? Instead, we may still end up with 20% more extent than 2007’s minimum.

    At this point, it looks like the 2010 ice extent is going to fall into an uncomfortable middle ground where neither camp can declare victory. It’ll be funny though because parts of both camps will likely try to claim victory. :-)

    -Scott

  81. Scott Ramsdell says:
    August 30, 2010 at 9:50 am

    Add in San Diego County to the list of having a cool summer in 2010 (before adjustments ;-).

  82. JAXA just Revised their 1st rise in extent by another 7 or 8 mill sq k’s..the Arctic just saw a 10,000 sq K rebound!! I can’t wait to see if the refreeze can pass up 09 down the road which would make up for any extent loss from last year although we still have a hundred million sq k’s to go to get to 09’s min…Sorry for the interuption…..ok back to the good stuff!

  83. baffled24 said at 8:19 am
    The melt will continue from below in the warmer water,
    Right, not the colder water, just the “warmer water” because that’s the water on the plus side of the “tipping point” temp. and NO other environmental conditions have any effect…. opps, except for snowfall – – I guess;
    any snowfall will act as a blanket,
    Right, holding in all that heat within the ICE….
    reducing ice growth from the air temperature.
    Right, that air temperature that can ONLY freeze/chill water/ice as it has no effect on snow once on the ground, or in this case on the ice…. What is that again? Thermodynamics Law 1,021?
    /sarc
    I couldn’t resist it. This whole discussion of the – additional 100PPM CO2 at 14k Ft above the tropics prevents Arctic water to freeze, in time causing the doom of mankind on Earth theory is getting just a little wacky. Well, as wacky as the theory itself. There would NEVER be any ice fishing if water ITSELF prevented ITSELF from forming its solid state. Question: What’s the temperature of the water BELOW the ice in a spring fed lake in Wisconsin in the dead of winter? Exactly! It’s ABOVE the “tipping point”. So how is there ice above it?

    And where
    Martin Brumby said at 1:48 am
    The “war against global warming” is actually a “war against the poor”.
    Not trying to put words in your mouth Martin, but I think you meant: The war (argument) FOR (human caused) GW is a war against the poor and I agree but specifically in that it is a war against the INDIVIDUAL, expressly the inalienable rights of individuals AND thereby the cause for acknowledging those rights and the elevation of the individual ABOVE any group no matter the economic status of either.
    That is why this “theory” is being driven (mostly) by the group thinkers at the UN. The construct of the UN is diametrically opposed to the construct of the US. That is why this “theory” is being opposed (mostly) by the individual thinkers in the US. I have never encountered a group thought worth anything….

  84. (Scott:) “so there’s still a very slight possibility of it staying above 2009 ”

    This chance would seem to me to be in the same league as the Petermann ice Island a.k.a “Deniersberg” reattaching itself to the glacier where it calved from. (Which S.G. told us would “probably” happen as well.)

    There are folks who are more than happy to both dismiss 2007 as a huge “wind anomaly” and, at the same time, claim the very same year as a ma(r)ker of a huge “recovery” trend. Either one of these notions will have to yield within a single individual, I feel!

  85. Virveli says:
    August 30, 2010 at 11:02 am
    (Scott:) “so there’s still a very slight possibility of it staying above 2009 ”

    “This chance would seem to me to be in the same league as the Petermann ice Island a.k.a “Deniersberg” reattaching itself to the glacier where it calved from. (Which S.G. told us would “probably” happen as well.)”

    ___________

    Or for the temperatures to go down in the 1930’s in the 2000’s

    Or for the temperatures to go down in the 1890’s in the 2000’s

    and so on…

  86. Ecotretas said:
    August 30, 2010 at 12:08 am
    I would expect more news about the Northwest passage and the Northern Sea route. Baltica, a ship carrying natural gas, has made it through, with the help of 3 nuclear icebreakers. Check it out at http://ecotretas.blogspot.com/2010/08/scf-baltica-and-northern-sea-route.html

    Ecotretas
    ____________________________

    That’s quite a sceptical page but even so if you follow the links rather than the bluster your comment ” with the help of 3 nuclear icebreakers ” doesn’t seem to hold true. The links say that the ice breakers followed the ship, but the ship didn’t need them and it got through one day faster than expected. So no help. Whether they made much money on it having to pay for the atomic ducklings following is an interesting point though.

    The NW passage northern direct route has less ice in it than in any of the last few years also.

    Andy

  87. Steven Mosher said:
    August 30, 2010 at 9:10 am
    Nightvid Cole says:
    August 30, 2010 at 5:33 am (Edit)

    Seriously, the type of global warming denial that many of you (I will not give specific names) have resorted to is really starting to just sound really stupid.”

    Yes. More important is this. The important skeptical arguments ( about sensitivity) get drown out by the increasing cacophany of spurious chattering. All the bandwidth is sucked up by shallowest most misleading voices.
    ________________________________________

    Totally agree, wheat and chaff and all that. On the pro AGW side the media has too much chaff and not enough wheat, and for the con AGW the great global layman does similar. It’s all black or white and the arguments that swing it one way or another are too clever for the majority to add any input on.

    Being neither too far pro or con, but quite pro scientists in general, including Juliette and Walt and Mark, I have a nice backstop who will always pipe up if I am writing bollocks… not sure who fills that gap in the other camp??

    You shouldn’t be posting non polar stuff like that here though… bad boy! :)

    Andy

  88. Virveli says:
    August 30, 2010 at 11:02 am

    (Scott:) “so there’s still a very slight possibility of it staying above 2009 ”

    Is it even possible to more selectively quote someone before ripping on their comment? To make it clear to those who didn’t read there earlier comment, here’s my sentence in whole:

    Yes, 2010 is trailing 2009 by ~180000 km^2 as of Aug 29, but it’s still above 2009′s minimum by ~103000 km^2, so there’s still a very slight possibility of it staying above 2009 (there’s also the possibility of it going below it in just a couple days too, LOL).

    Notice the actual numbers given as well as the admission that it’s possible to reach 2009’s minimum within just a couple days? Why were these not included in what you quoted? Hard to rip on the sentence when it was given in its entirety? Regarding what you said about this probability:

    This chance would seem to me to be in the same league as the Petermann ice Island a.k.a “Deniersberg” reattaching itself to the glacier where it calved from. (Which S.G. told us would “probably” happen as well.)

    I don’t know anything about the probability of the Petermann Ice Island reattaching (nor do I know why it matters since it calved…not melted), but I calculate the probability of finishing above 2009 to be 2.9% currently (to be exact, the probability of exceeding 1.9 std deviations…using a method I outlined on the previous Sea Ice News). What number do you calculate for the glacier reattaching? Have you even calculated one? Please let me know your methods. If you BSed it, then please stop spewing garbage.

    -Scott

  89. bubbagyro says:
    August 29, 2010 at 5:12 pm

    u.k.(us) says:
    August 29, 2010 at 4:59 pm

    The cruise ship operators are insisting that Canada supply a permanently stationed helicopter for rescue purposes. Supplied by Canada, of course! A sense of entitlement becomes swagger…then hubris!
    ____________________________________
    Gee, I think they should reap the Darwin Award instead. The Gene Pool could use a bit of cleaning.

    Our failure to allow nature to clean the Gene Pool has resulted in idiots being elected to high public office, yes it is definitely time to let nature clean the Gene Pool.

  90. Konrad: August 29, 2010 at 10:39 pm
    Yes, some may infer that but I did indicate in my previous comment that the ship was grounded (as is ran aground). However having updated information on the ships location, I would consider that it is likely to be re-floated before any of this winters ice comes close.

    On the plus side, there’s an icebreaker enroute to play tugboat to get Clipper Adventurer off the rock.

    On the minus side, the ship was reported as listing, with no information on what the tide state was at the time of the observation.

  91. Juliette Strive is wishing to be reaffirmed about mans influence . There are apparently no real machos in this blog . Anybody willing to accept the glove ?
    Give her a real handshake and she may be more than willing to accept any offer she cannot refuse .

  92. I found this interesting from the article about the ship that was grounded

    “The increase in traffic is almost exponential, and we’re not prepared for that,” he said, noting there were 69 transits of the Northwest Passage in the 100 years up to and including 2006.Last year alone, there were 24.”

    That seems to reflect a lag of resources behind the changing climate conditions up there.

    Andy

  93. frederik wisse,

    You misunderstand, as does Juliette Strove: the burden of showing that human action causes measurable global warming is entirely on those who push the CO2=CAGW hypothesis. Scientific skeptics simply ask: where is the empirical evidence showing that human CO2 emissions will cause runaway global warming?

    So far the climate alarmists have failed to provide testable, empirical evidence and observations to back their hypothesis. Instead, they use computer models and pal reviewed papers.

    You have the scientific method backwards; you should be demanding solid, testable evidence measuring the effect of human emitted CO2 on temperature. So far, the evidence shows that CO2 has negligible effect, based on the real world evidence and verifiable observation.

    When you jettison the scientific method, you enter the realm of conjecture, and you’re left with impotent complaints like: “There are apparently no real machos in this blog.”

    Next, you’ll be saying, “My dad can beat up your dad.” Instead, you would do well to learn how the scientific method works. Based on your post above, you simply do not understand why the CO2=CAGW hypothesis fails.

  94. Martin Brumby says: August 30, 2010 at 1:48 am
    These Arctic sea ice posts are always interesting but I still can’t see quite what all the fuss is about.

    Hi Martin. Some 60+ studies show doubling CO2 will raise global temps. The results cluster around +3C (+/-1C). These arise from basic research, not GCMs. Please read Mark Lynas’ excellent book “Six Degrees”. It details what might be anticipated from a +1C, +2C etc rises. Before WUWT regulars jump down my throat it is made clear in the book and by interviews with the author that the +5C, +6C chapters in particular are speculative and supported by sparse data sets at best. The many potential effects of +3C are sobering enough – no need to read further. One simple example; for England, I anticipate “1 in 100 year” flood events to become far more frequent.

    Arctic ice is fighting a losing battle against rising ocean heat content – a consequence of GW. Paradoxically, in its current phase, the final extent is now more sensitive to weather events than before, but the variation is about a much lower mean.

  95. it is so good that we finally have someone who is qualified to tell everyone else what is the correct way to think.

  96. “Hi Martin. Some 60+ studies show doubling CO2 will raise global temps. The results cluster around +3C (+/-1C).”

    I thought the physical properties of CO2 as a GHG were a 1C for a doubling of pre-industrial levels (280 x 2=560ppm) and that to get to 3C for that same doubling all the feedbacks were of the warming category. They get the 3C+ from the MODELS that they run, because they program the feedbacks to be of the warm variety.

  97. Ammonite
    August 30, 2010 at 2:10 pm

    “Some 60+ studies show doubling CO2 will raise global temps. The results cluster around +3C (+/-1C).”

    Doubling from what level to what level?

  98. Ammonite says: “The many potential effects of +3C are sobering enough – no need to read further. One simple example; for England, I anticipate “1 in 100 year” flood events to become far more frequent.”

    Forgive me, but taking all of this as stipulated, I still think you are going to have a hard time “sobering” the people of England with tales of their climate becoming almost, but not quite, bearable to a tropical species.

    Rather than tales of floods several times a century I think it best that you revert to the former tactic; tales of ubiquitous glacier.

  99. Bill Tuttle says:
    August 30, 2010 at 1:23 pm
    On the plus side, there’s an icebreaker enroute to play tugboat to get Clipper Adventurer off the rock.

    On the minus side, the ship was reported as listing, with no information on what the tide state was at the time of the observation.

    Oh, I’m sure their passengers are convinced that the rapid sea level rise will get the cruise ship back afloat soon.

  100. Updated 15-day chart:

    Updated 7-day chart. 2009 added for comparison:

    I think we’re now past the point of undershoot and a latent dip as in 2005/6, despite JAXA having just confirmed an unnerving early gain. It’s taken a bit of a knock in the past week but the 7-day average still looks on track to cross stasis on 11th, two days ahead of 2009. I’ve revised my estimate down slightly from to 5.19 x 10^6 +/- 0.10 to 5.15 x 10^6 +/- 0.10. I expect the variance to reduce significantly now as we close in. If it doesn’t +/- 0.10 may not be wide enough.

    5249844 was the lowest 15% extent posted for Jaxa in 2009, on Sept 13th. 5352500 has just been posted for Aug 29th 2010 (provisional was 5345156). Here is what would happen if melt continued to decline in a straight line at the same rate as it did in 2009 (about 19,000/day), which it won’t of course.

    Date    2009     2010
    ------  -------  -------
    Aug-29  5533906  5352500
    Aug-30  5487656  5333477
    Aug-31  5447188  5314453
    Sep-01  5423750  5295430
    Sep-02  5398281  5276406
    Sep-03  5379844  5257383
    Sep-04  5387969  5238359
    Sep-05  5363438  5219336
    Sep-06  5345156  5200312
    Sep-07  5328906  5181289
    Sep-08  5330469  5162266
    Sep-09  5315938  5143242
    Sep-10  5295313  5124219
    Sep-11  5278594  5105195
    Sep-12  5259375  5086172
    Sep-13  5249844  5067148
    

    I’m expecting it to stick fairly closely to the 7-day mean but head north slightly early due to what by most accounts seem to be colder conditions. As Steve says, at the end of the day it’s a crap shoot – even at this eleventh hour.

    Thanks Steve for pricking my interest enough to look at the numbers for myself. It’s convinced me the cycle is strongly hysteretic and therefore that year to year trends are pretty much meaningless and drawing a linear trend across even 30 years of data is for the most part, complete nonsense. Joe Bastardi has the right idea with his “two steps forward one step back” statement. The Arctic is like a 100watt Marshal stack fed with weather signals through a fuzz-box with sustain set to 10. A pair of ear muffs might be a good idea in the next few years (but not for the noise).

  101. Konrad says:
    August 29, 2010 at 4:00 pm

    the cruise ship Clipper Adventurer now grounded in the north west passage cannot be freed soon, it may be there for some time. Ice breakers are apparently on route to free passengers

    I can’t believe this kind of thing happened again. So much for the claim “the Northwest Passage is open”.

    Wait, maybe i can believe it happened again. What does that proverb say, “what has been is what will be”.

  102. AndyW says:
    August 30, 2010 at 11:45 am

    > That’s quite a sceptical page but even so if you follow the
    > links rather than the bluster your comment ” with the help
    > of 3 nuclear icebreakers ” doesn’t seem to hold true. The
    > links say that the ice breakers followed the ship, but the
    > ship didn’t need them and it got through one day faster
    > than expected. So no help.

    Are you reading the same page that I’m reading? One of the links points to http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5i0qfFIMLHvqlM-5R3Zlkg5l-l52w which says… “Russian television has shown the tanker making cautious progress through chunky sheets of ice ***IN THE WAKE OF THE STEEL-RIMMED ICE BREAKERS***, as a polar bear loped across ice floes within shouting distance of the ships”. Yes, the tanker was following the ice breakers.

    And this isn’t the first navigation of the northeast passage, either. Wikipedia is run by AGW true-beleievers. But even they don’t deny the saga of the Komet. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_auxiliary_cruiser_Komet for the details. Note that until the launch of Operation Barbarossa in June 1941, “Uncle Joe” and “Uncle Adolf” were still buddy-buddies. I quote from the Wikipedia article…

    > Under the command of Kapitän zur See (later Konteradmiral)
    > Robert Eyssen, HSK7 departed for her first raiding voyage from
    > Gotenhafen on 3 July 1940 with a crew of 270.[3] With the
    > consent of the then neutral Soviet Union, Komet initially made
    > its way along the Norwegian coast disguised as the Soviet
    > icebreaker Semyon Dezhnev.[3] While waiting in Teriberka Bay
    > in July and August because of Soviet security concerns, she took
    > the fake name the Donau.[3] With assistance from Soviet
    > icebreaker Lenin, she passed through the several Arctic Ocean
    > passages in August.[4] She later also received help from Joseph
    > Stalin.[4] In early September, the Komet crossed the Bering
    > Straits into the Pacific Ocean.

    And let me also point out that in 1940, Russia did not have nuclear-powered ice-breakers. And there were no polar orbiting satellites taking photos to tell you where the openings and leads were in the ice pack. Not that it would’ve helped that much without a constellation of GPS satellites enabling you to know where you are on earth to within a few feet. I also wonder how many of those “single-handed voyages through the Northwest Passge” would’ve succeeded with 1940’s navigation charts, no satellite ice maps, no GPS and no radio contact with the rest of the world.

  103. On the other hand, where are these massive losses that the CAGW experts have been predicting?

    Well, the massive losses were there in May and June. But then the weather turned and six weeks of low-pressure areas dominating the Arctic made the Beaufort Gyre and Transpolar Drift Stream stall (much less transport through Fram Strait), increased cloudiness (less insolation) and lowered temperatures.

    In 2007, the year of the perfect storm, the atmospheric pattern that is very conducive to decreasing extent called the Arctic Dipole Anomaly (which we saw in May and June this year) was greatly influencing the melt all the way to the end of the melting season.

    Consider the fact that 2010 missed out on this big factor during much of the most important time of the melting season when extent decrease rates are highest. 2007 clocked almost 100K a day during July, 2010 had a little bit more than 60K. During the first 2 weeks of August 2007’s extent melt rate was still 10K above 2010’s. This makes a great difference.

    But 2010 is still in third place and with a bit of luck might go below 5 million square km. Imagine what would have happened if 3 of those 6 weeks during July and the first half of August would have been similar to those of 2007.

    If you look at the MODIS satellite images and zoom in on specific regions you can clearly see the ice is not recovering (yet, perhaps next year). Also compare the Uni Bremen sea ice concentration map to previous years. Look at all those holes in the central ice pack.

  104. stevengoddard says:
    August 30, 2010 at 5:34 pm

    The behaviour of the ice in September will not be a statistics problem. It will be determined by the specifics of the weather.

    Yep, and ultimately affect what happens next March.

  105. stevengoddard says:
    August 30, 2010 at 9:04 am

    baffled

    What do you think water temperatures are under the ice in the central Arctic?

    Warm enough for it not to be ice.

  106. CRS, Dr.P.H. says:
    August 29, 2010 at 7:53 pm

    …how about some honest, rigorous scientific investigation based upon sound, repeatable methodology, exhaustive statistical analysis, independent replication, honest peer review and widespread availability of codes and data?

    Not much to ask for….

    And add let’s stop using 1979 to 2007 data to the exclusion of all other time periods to make conclusions about what’s happening in climate.

  107. Dear Steve/Anthony/others,

    I have not really followed the sea ice updates but I am confused about how it is that skeptics print these updates that appear to show hardly any change in sea ice extents whereas others (e.g. http://www.climatecodered.net/, then click on ‘Arctic challenge’) show huge, alarming changes in sea ice extent.

    Does anyone know of a good introduction to help a beginner on this subject understand what is going on?

    Best,
    Alex

  108. stevengoddard says:

    “What do you think water temperatures are under the ice in the central Arctic?”

    o! pick me, pick me!

    Been there, measured that.
    With a thermometer I calibrated myself even.

    And 0 C is a bit warmer

    Seawater freezes at 28 F up there.

    5.1 looks good for this years minimum.

    How’s that recovery going?

  109. Jeff P says:
    August 30, 2010 at 6:45 am

    This puts 2010 in the top five lowest sea ice extents in the JAXA record and it’s still August.

    I’ll assume your post wasn’t humor. So what was the point? The JAXA record is very short.

    What is your view of how bad PIOMAS predictions are? So far Steven Goddard isn’t that far off. PIOMAS is awful. Do you agree? Will you make a long comment about how awful PIOMAS is, even longer than the one you made about Steven Goddard? You wouldn’t be biased and not, would you?

  110. On the steep downward leg, in the big picture, already. Sunset at the pole in 3 weeks, dusk at lower latitudes and sunset not long after that.

  111. bob

    Ice volume has increased year over year since 2008, and there will be a significant increase in the amount of multi-year ice in 2011. Those are the primary considerations in a recovery. Ask NSIDC if you don’t believe me.

  112. stevengoddard says:
    August 30, 2010 at 5:34 pm

    The behaviour of the ice in September will not be a statistics problem. It will be determined by the specifics of the weather.

    That is true.

    But we keep getting told by some that the statistics derived from data gathered from 1979 to 2007 determines what we will see happen in the ice. And not only for this year but anytime from 2015 to 2040 all Arctic Ice will be gone in the summertime. And we are told it is not a matter now of ‘if’ but ‘when’.

    We don’t know for sure what weather will be 5 days from now, but we are told with 100% certainty the Arctic is soon going to have ice free summers….oh, wait, wait, unless we change our ways. They know that with 100% certainty too.

    Nice to know man suddenly has evolved the ability to control weather.

  113. Green Sand says: August 30, 2010 at 2:38 pm
    “Doubling from what level to what level?”

    For the range of CO2 concentrations in our present day atmosphere the starting level is not important.

    kfg says: August 30, 2010 at 2:58 pm
    “you are going to have a hard time “sobering” the people of England with tales of their climate becoming almost, but not quite, bearable to a tropical species.”

    :) Yep, that’s a lost cause!

  114. Preliminary (is the official name provisional?) JAXA number for 08/30 shows another very small increase in extent today…just 313 km^2. We’ll see how the updated number changes. If these increases are entirely due to divergence/spreading, we could be in for a world of hurt in the upcoming days. If they’re the combination of divergence and some refreezing, maybe not so much.

    Current extent is now predicting 5.07e6 km^2. My other method (mentioned in the comments of last week’s Sea Ice News) is predicting 5.08e6 km^2 with a standard deviation of 92500 km^2. Just so you know, this increases the probability of beating 2009 to 3.36%, LOL.

    -Scott

  115. stevengoddard says:
    August 30, 2010 at 8:27 pm

    Scott,

    When making your forecasts, you should probably consider the Arctic weather.

    http://wxmaps.org/pix/temp2.html

    Hi Steve, thanks for the advice. I know the weather is the key factor here these last two weeks, but I don’t have the expertise to use it in my calculations. Also, I consider the numbers I’m posting to just be updates on what the statistics say to those people here reading that don’t have the time/experience to workup the JAXA numbers themselves. I don’t consider them forecasts.

    Maybe next year I’ll try putting together a multiparameter equation to do more than these very basic statistics.

    -Scott

  116. Scott,

    If you look at 2006, extent dropped rapidly right before it flatlined. This year may be a repeat of that pattern. Given the triple point of water at 0C, the behaviour of the ice can change dramatically with a very small change in the weather.

  117. What about the shortest melt season? Is that still in play?

    Break out the popcorn?

    JAXA

    DMi

    I’m not saying this turn up means the melt season is over. But it reminds of global warming predictions of longer melts seasons in the Arctic.

  118. Amino,

    The melt season will almost certainly be the shortest on record, regardless of what happens during the next two weeks. Because the peak extent occurred almost a month later than normal.

  119. Alex Harvey:
    Graphs are pretty but only TOPAZ shows the two Main Satellites in comparison (AMSR-E & SSMI)
    (ignore the top row & Topaz itself: – – it is a forecast) http://arctic-roos.org/forecasting-services/topaz/topaz-model-forecast
    DATA is present at only a few Places (3).
    >Extent is where Ice drops below 15% coverage, i.e, 85% open water (except DMI, which uses 30%), Always MORE than Area.
    >>Area seems like it would be better — but is MUCH less predictable. And jumps UP a lot.
    >>>VOLUME is low lately, so WUWT pretends it is fake — in fact ICESAT showed it will read MORE Ice than is really there, in a big melt: http://psc.apl.washington.edu/ArcticSeaiceVolume/IceVolume.php
    DATA
    Area: Nansen=Norsex http://www.nersc.no/main/index2.php (Bottom of page: but the “2008” and “2009”: should be 2010 & 2007)
    Area: (JAXA, is AMSR-E) http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/timeseries.anom.1979-2008
    Extent (JAXA, is Amsr-E) http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/seaice/extent/plot.csv
    … note that NSIDC uses a less accurate Algorithm in order to remain compatible with OLD Data – – but Norsex Charts may have updated their Old numbers as their 2007 minimum is 10% HIGHER than the Nansen number, yet IDENTICAL for 2010.
    This implies ALL other graphs UNDERSTATE past years’s ice by about 10%.
    JAXA Area, thus implies that 2007 will break 2007’s record TOMORROW, assuming another 143 K melt (it has average 70K over the last 6 days & at this rate WILL pass in under a week – – which tends to confirm the PIOMAS numbers.
    … Except … As all these satellites are recievers of emitted radiation, they can & do confuse ICE and Water (especially the hotter water). AND NSIDC says the AMSR-E instruments are on the fritz & recording TOO MUCH ICE – – which is likely why the Norsex Charts show 2010 SOOOOOO close to the 2007 & 2008 Minima.
    But am I certain about that ? No.
    So look at Nansen’s and JAXA’a area the last few days:
    08/24/2010 4585606.7 km2. + _9 K
    08/25/2010 4441278.1 km2. -144 K
    08/26/2010 4429732.4 km2. – 11.5 k
    08/27/2010 4352233.7 km2 – 77.501 K
    08/28/2010 4359146.5 km2. + _6,913
    08/29/2010 4368270.3 km2. + _ 9,124
    Nansen Minima 3.29 = 2007 (But NORSEX has 3.6 = 2007)
    JAXA MINIMA = 2.919 = 2007 3.426 = 2009 3.004 = 2008
    2010.6438 3.6573241 -112,204.3
    2010.6466 3.6183364 – 38,987.7
    2010.6493 3.6434665 + 25,1301
    Aug.26th 3.5644226 – 79,043.9 (0.6521 of 365 days = 238th day)
    2010.6548 3.4909644 – 73,458.2
    2010.6576 3.3474884 -143,476

    … Do you get the Picture? _ _ THEY DISAGREE – – a LOT.
    Further: this year is WEIRD. The Ice volume was so low that 30-to-50 foot thick ice that has stuck to Greenland & nearby Islands for Decades, up & got sucked into the void. This I refer to as Ice CUBES (though actually the corners melt off)..
    As the La Nina makes it COLD, every Night we get some Freezing, especially near these big blocks. Even though that is 1/2 inch thick ice that vanishes come daylight, the Numbers are 2-to-5 day averages & this affects them a LOT (Note: except near the Pole, which has no Night, now: 6 months Day & 6 months NIGHT. Sunset is 23 days off, I think)

    Personally I take all save Piomas with a grain of salt – – at least THIS year, with the unusual reflections confusing the satellites SOOO much – – as ONLY Piomas “assimilates” (thus the “as” in its name) data from ship & shore people, who actually MEASURE the ice. Even then, the Center area around the Pole, is just a guess (that is where the 2007 Piomas error occurred, and, we are again seeing a LOT of low-concentration ice near the Pole).
    Overall, however, I think the BIG CHUNCKS will melt so much slower than thinner pieces that the La Nina we have — and the next one — the 60-year Cycle is in its Cold phase since 2007, which implies 2 – – will add a LOT of Ice before the next El Nino threatens to wipe it out again (a 1960s book called the Physics of Ice insisted Ice’s time-to-melt varied as the SQUARE of thickness).
    Predicting the Future: try EMMCF – – pick NHemi http://www.wetterzentrale.de/topkarten/fsecmeur.html
    And Pips for Ice Drift/Displacement : http://www7320.nrlssc.navy.mil/pips2/idis.html … “archive” means OLDER charts.

    By the Way: Congrats to Steve – – he submitted a Sea Ice Outlook. 5.1 million Square km — unless he persuades Helen to let him change it in the next 48 hours or so. But 5.1 looks possible.
    It takes Guts to hang it all out there in public.

  120. Amino Acids in Meteorites says:
    August 30, 2010 at 4:47 pm
    Konrad says:
    August 29, 2010 at 4:00 pm

    the cruise ship Clipper Adventurer now grounded in the north west passage cannot be freed soon, it may be there for some time. Ice breakers are apparently on route to free passengers

    I can’t believe this kind of thing happened again. So much for the claim “the Northwest Passage is open”.
    ________________________________________________________

    Amino, it ran aground, it did not hit an iceberg :)

    Andy

  121. Amino Acids in Meteorites says:
    August 30, 2010 at 7:26 pm

    I’ll assume your post wasn’t humor. So what was the point? The JAXA record is very short.

    What is your view of how bad PIOMAS predictions are? So far Steven Goddard isn’t that far off. PIOMAS is awful. Do you agree? Will you make a long comment about how awful PIOMAS is, even longer than the one you made about Steven Goddard? You wouldn’t be biased and not, would you?
    ———————
    1) I agree it is short, however I did not choose to use the JAXA data, Steve Goddard chose it. He was happy to use it while it supported his “theory of sea ice recovery” and you had no complaints.

    2) Now that it is not supporting his theory you are complaining. And you casually accuse me of being biased?

    3) In your other comments in the thread you complain about the 1979-2007 satellite data (much longer time period) as well. So what sea ice extent data are you suggesting people use?

    4) As far as the PIPS vs. PIOMAS debate goes, my original post had nothing to do with those models, there have been lengthy threads on this issue and I have nothing new or interesting to add at this time. Mostly I’m looking forward to the Cryosat-2 data.
    ————————
    My original post that Amino has issues with:

    The final days of the 2010 melt season are here and the horse race is on.

    2010 is the 9th year in the JAXA record. How will it place?

    Today 2010 has the Goddard Minimum beat. Wow!!! I had no idea if Steve’s “Theory of Increasing Sea Ice” would be supported by the data or not when this all started but I am quite surprised that his theory was busted… in August!

    Let’s look at the standing.

    2003 Min.: 6,041,250: Busted 8/14/10
    2004 Min.: 5,784,688: Busted 8/19/10
    2006 Min.: 5,781,719: Busted 8/19/10
    2002 Min: 5,646,875: Busted 8/22/10
    Goddard Min: 5,500,000: Busted 8/26/10
    2005 Min: 5,315,156: ????

    This puts 2010 in the top five lowest sea ice extents in the JAXA record and it’s still August.

  122. If the AGW climate models were as accurate as your ice forecast, there would be no debate on AGW. I would say at this point, the forecast is pretty accurate – just not exact. Which is how forecasts work.

  123. Günther Kirschbaum says:
    August 30, 2010 at 5:24 pm

    “But 2010 is still in third place and with a bit of luck might go below 5 million square km. ”

    So let me add this up Gunther. You think AGW is true, and that the Artic Ice is disappearing because of it. You also think this is a bad thing, but you are rooting / cheerleading for it to happen for the ability to say “I told you so” on a blog? Interesting logic, people may start to question your sanity.

  124. Jon P,

    You do realise that “a bit of luck” isn’t necessarily the same thing as “a bit of good luck”, don’t you? That said, I don’t think you’re completely off base but I think it would be more accurate to say Günther thinks the disappearance of arctic sea ice over the long term is a bad thing and that he therefore hopes it will drop low enough this year to thoroughly discredit people who argue that the sea ice is doing just fine and there’s nothing to worry about, resulting in effective action to prevent the expected long term decline if we continue with business as usual. Being able to say I told you so is nice but it’s primarily a means to the end of mitigating climate change, not an end in itself.

  125. Jeff P

    Using your methodology, a forecast of zero would be ideal – because it would never be “busted.”

    Doesn’t work that way in target shooting. Winner is closest to the bullseye. You are being disingenuous.

  126. Dave says:
    August 31, 2010 at 8:59 am

    Second straight day of gain on the 30th.

    Actually, no. I thought so too, but they revised the previous day’s number to a bigger increase (to almost 10 K) so on the 30th they now show a >4K decline. (Of course that could change if they revise the 30th later.)

    Here are the present numbers:
    Aug 28th-5,342,656
    Aug 29th-5,352,500
    Aug 30th-5,348,281

    Most years (in the relatively short record) the first extent increase occurred between about Sep 1st and Sep 4th, with only one I believe earlier than Aug 29th. DMI has reported above average temps for the last few days so it seems reasonable to assume that the increase in extent is due to some diverging ice. If temperatures stay unusually high for a couple more days (per DMI) it wouldn’t seem to be surprising to get a few more days of large drops in extent. That, I believe, is what Steve Goddard was saying in one of the comments as well. (A drop of 300K or so after the first extent increase date isn’t that unusual, by the way, even when it occurred in early Sept.)

    One thing I find interesting about the DMI data at http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/meant80n.uk.php is how far above average the temps have been during the last four months of the year in this decade. 2004 was the only year even close to the average temperature line and even that appeared to be above average. Other years rarely hit the average for more than a day or so, with the past 5 or 6 being really warm.

    Yet this pattern doesn’t hold for the spring months where temps in the Arctic seem to oscillate around the average after January or so. Anyone have a plausible explanation for this (other than “Hey, that’s the weather for you.”)? Temperatures in the summer months (per DMI) have actually been below average for much of the decade, so it would seem to me that perhaps the temperature behavior over the last few months of the year has more to do with the low arctic ice extent in recent years than does the temperature behavior in the summer months. That is, less ice is formed in the first few months of the re-freeze, so there’s less to melt come summer. Anyway, gives me something to watch once the melt season has ended.

    Rod

  127. Rod Everson,

    “Most years (in the relatively short record) the first extent increase occurred between about Sep 1st and Sep 4th, with only one I believe earlier than Aug 29th. ”

    Your belief is based on insufficiently thorough research. August 24th showed an increase in extent in the JAXA record in both 2002 and 2006.

  128. Djon says:
    August 31, 2010 at 10:08 am

    I think you should analyze what you wrote and try to follow your own logic. Hint: Do you really think getting below 5M2KM this year is going to suddenly change the world view to initiate a change in the “business as usual”? People will change to alternative fuels when they are affordable, not becasue some yahoo on a blog is rooting for something he believes to be bad thing, to happen, to score debate points.

    Example. I really do not believe in CAGW. I do not want government enforced drastic measures to control CO2 however, I just bought a VW Jetta TDI, Why? because it was more cost effective than any comparable gas (even hybrid models) vehicles at the time of purchase. The 40+ mpg is all gravy from day 1.

    Relying/depending/expecting a government solution to your perceived problem will not be effective.

  129. stevengoddard says:
    August 31, 2010 at 10:16 am

    Jeff P

    Using your methodology, a forecast of zero would be ideal – because it would never be “busted.”

    Doesn’t work that way in target shooting. Winner is closest to the bullseye. You are being disingenuous.
    ———————————–

    Steve,

    If you want to predict an ice free arctic no one is stopping you.

    You’ve certainly changed your tune from earlier in the year when you were saying that your prediction of 5.5 million K^2 was too conservative and the minimum would be much higher.

    No, this isn’t anything like target shooting. You proposed a theory that arctic sea ice is recovering and the test of that theory would be a minimum extent above 5.5 million K^2 in 2010. The extent has dropped below that casting serious doubt on the validity of your theory.

    Lastly, it would be nice if we could have this conversation without name calling or questioning my sincerity. Calling me disingenuous is just hurling insults and adds nothing of substance.

    P.S. if you still regard your theory of sea ice recovery in play what are the minimums you predict for 2011 – 2015? Based on your theory they should be increasing year after year.

  130. Djon says:
    August 31, 2010 at 11:52 am

    You know that when someone says “I believe” it usually means that they did not research it and are unsure about their statement. Even a reader with basic comprehensions skills knows enough that the statement in question should be investigated. On the other hand your attack mode is quite effective at convincing me to read what you write more carefully, um I ment more infrequently.

  131. Djon says:
    August 31, 2010 at 11:52 am

    “Your belief is based on insufficiently thorough research. August 24th showed an increase in extent in the JAXA record in both 2002 and 2006.”

    You’re correct, and you caught the “I believe” in my statement. 2002 was missing some records right around the beginning of September and so I had ignored it the first time I checked the data. I re-checked it in the middle of writing that post but then overlooked correcting what I’d written. Sorry about that and thanks for clearing it up for everyone.

    Rod

  132. Jon P,

    Are you saying that you don’t want government enforced drastic measures to control CO2 because you don’t believe in CAGW or that you wouldn’t want government enforced drastic measures to control CO2 even if you did believe in CAGW? Can we agree that the latter position would be foolish, unless you had some plausible non-government solution to the problem? Personally, I don’t think people voluntarily buying more fuel efficient cars (and, no doubt, taking other efficiency measures they consider cost effective) is going to be enough of a response to the threat.

    Also, do you disbelieve in the efficacy of government solutions to all problems too large or complex to be addressed by individual action or is climate change somehow a special case? Government action has, in fact, solved some pretty big problems over the course of time, though climate change is admittedly a bigger one than any in the past I can easily bring to mind given the long time frame before catastrophic impacts are likely, the gradual nature of the changes involved, the need for international cooperation to address it, etc.

    And no, I don’t think a minimum this year below 5 million square kilometers is going to end all debate and lead to immediate strong action. However, I’m not aware of any rule saying public policy debates have to be settled in one fell swoop. In my view, every little bit of evidence helps and arctic ice, as one of the more closely watched indicators of a warming world, is one of the more important pieces of the evidentiary case for climate change being a problem that needs to be addressed.

  133. Jon P,

    “You know that when someone says “I believe” it usually means that they did not research it and are unsure about their statement.”

    This from the person who only a few hours ago wrote “I really do not believe in CAGW.”. Are we to understand that use of the phrase “I really do not believe” is usually indicative of thorough research? For future reference, is it the “do not” that does it or the “really” or are both necessary to convey this subtle nuance?

  134. Jon P says:
    August 31, 2010 at 12:28 pm

    Jeff P says:
    August 31, 2010 at 12:17 pm

    Stop your lying, it is getting beyond ridiculous.
    ——————-
    Jon P,

    So much for civility….

    What precisely is the lie that you are referring to?

  135. In case anyone else interpreted my response to Rod Everson as an attack, I’d like to say it wasn’t intended as such, just as a reminder to all that care should be taken when making factual assertions in any forum. I’m glad Rod, at least, seems to have taken it as such.

  136. stevengoddard says:
    August 31, 2010 at 12:39 pm

    Jeff P

    If you need to twist other people’s words to get your point across, then your point is worthless.
    ———————-

    I agree.

    Since this is addressed to me I presume that you think I have twisted your words. What exactly did I get wrong?

  137. Djon says:
    August 31, 2010 at 12:43 pm

    What does the “C” stand for in CAGW? You sure type a lot of words and say very little.

    Your prior post, the former is my answer. People are volunterring to buy more fuel efficient cars? lol They will buy them when they make economic sense. Are you insinuating that government should transition “volunteering” to “mandating”?

    So just so we are clear, loss of ice in Artic bad caused by CAGW, but no loss of ice in Antartic is OK, because it is different. High temps in Moscow = CAGW. Low temps in South America, southern California, etc = weather. Government is the model of efficiency where capitalism is bad and evil and corrupt. Nothing anyone says, writes, displays will delude the confidence that you have in the “threat” that we “face”.

    Yep planet has warmed, but it is not catastrophic and the only evidence that you have that it will be is models. So you must “believe” it, because you certainly cannot “prove” it.

  138. Jeff P,

    You proposed a theory that arctic sea ice is recovering and the test of that theory would be a minimum extent above 5.5 million K^2 in 2010.

    I never said anything of the sort. I made an estimate of 5.5, the rest is a straw man fabricated up by you.

  139. Jeff P says:
    August 31, 2010 at 1:07 pm

    “You’ve certainly changed your tune from earlier in the year when you were saying that your prediction of 5.5 million K^2 was too conservative and the minimum would be much higher.”

    Steven discussed about conditions that could affect his prediction one way or another, all summer. He never changed his 5.5 number. The above is a lie. I said it without anger or any other emotion you may wish to project. Would you have “felt” better if I said it was not truthful? or not accurate?

  140. Djon says:
    August 31, 2010 at 1:06 pm

    I wish I could hear the words you type, I can only imagine the condescending tone of your voice, like nails on a chalkboard to my ears.

  141. Djon says:
    August 31, 2010 at 10:08 am
    Jon P,

    You do realise that “a bit of luck” isn’t necessarily the same thing as “a bit of good luck”, don’t you?
    ———–
    I’ve been wondering what other interpretations there might be of ” a bit of luck” and the only one I’ve come up with is “a lot of luck”, but still where the luck is good and not bad.
    I don’t suppose you’d indulge me with an example of a context in which it might refer to bad luck, or even a neutral luck that is neither good nor bad.
    Pretty silly, I’ll grant you, but the underlying point that you go on to allude to is the very human desire to be vindicated in one’s opinions.
    I would ascribe it a much greater significance than you appear to do, and that would be at the expense of the eminently sane rationale such as that which you credit Mr. Cherrytree with.
    Of course, we have very grown-up terms acknowledging the phenomenon, like confirmation bias, but none of it goes into a numerical model.

  142. Oliver Ramsay,

    Okay, I’ll stipulate that no one I’ve ever encountered commonly uses the phrase “a bit of luck” with other than good luck in mind. Perhaps I shouldn’t have attempted any sort of play on words there. I was thinking of Steven’s relatively recent emphasis on saying that winds and their impact on the extent are a crapshoot, and that chance isn’t good or bad independently of our reasons for preferring one outcome over another. If you choose to think less well of Günther’s possible reasons for apparently wanting a fairly low minimum than I, well, neither of us are mind readers. I’m glad we can at least agree that the possible motivation I suggested he might and, in my view, likely does hold is eminently sane. Differences in our level of cynicism about people, I can certainly live with without thinking you’re foolish,.

  143. My current Monday (8/30/2010) Arctic sea ice extent minimum (bases on JAXA 2003-2010 statistics inclusive) is 4.92E6 km^2 (standard deviation = 0.09E6 km^2).

    Note this includes the last two days of JAXA data which have basically flatlined.

  144. Interesting to see the passage of the apocalyptic iceberg up in north-western Greenland over the past few weeks:

    Fragmented a wee bit, but it’s barely poking its nose into the Nares Strait (which, it would appear, isn’t far from freezing up for the winter).

  145. Jon P says:
    August 31, 2010 at 1:46 pm

    Jeff P says:
    August 31, 2010 at 1:07 pm

    “You’ve certainly changed your tune from earlier in the year when you were saying that your prediction of 5.5 million K^2 was too conservative and the minimum would be much higher.”

    Steven discussed about conditions that could affect his prediction one way or another, all summer. He never changed his 5.5 number. The above is a lie. I said it without anger or any other emotion you may wish to project. Would you have “felt” better if I said it was not truthful? or not accurate?
    ——————-
    Jon P,

    Read what I said again.
    Nowhere in my quote do I say that Steve changed his 5.5 number.
    If that is the basis of you calling me a liar you have no case and owe me an apology.
    I stand by what I wrote as true.

  146. stevengoddard says:
    August 31, 2010 at 1:28 pm

    Jeff P,

    You proposed a theory that arctic sea ice is recovering and the test of that theory would be a minimum extent above 5.5 million K^2 in 2010.

    I never said anything of the sort. I made an estimate of 5.5, the rest is a straw man fabricated up by you.
    —————

    Steve,

    Are you denying that you said that arctic sea ice is in recovery or has recovered?

  147. Jon P,

    When you were imputing the position that government is the model of efficiency to me, you were erecting a straw man since I hadn’t said any such thing but at least I knew what you were talking about. Now with this reference to “team defense” I really have no idea what you’re talking about. Perhaps, instead of putting words in the mouths of others, you ought to use enough of them yourself to adequately explain your intended meaning.

  148. stevengoddard says:
    August 31, 2010 at 3:20 pm
    The next three days will see a little decline, then back to flat.

    We need to loose 20 to 30K, does that much look likely?

  149. Steve,

    You posted,

    “Ice volume has increased year over year since 2008, and there will be a significant increase in the amount of multi-year ice in 2011. Those are the primary considerations in a recovery. Ask NSIDC if you don’t believe me.”

    And I did, or rather found that question in their FAQ file, and here is their answer

    “Even though the extent of Arctic sea ice has not returned to the record low of 2007, the data show that it is not recovering.”

    that quote is from

    http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/faq.html#why_more

  150. Jon P says:
    August 31, 2010 at 1:46 pm
    Jeff P says:
    August 31, 2010 at 1:07 pm

    “You’ve certainly changed your tune from earlier in the year when you were saying that your prediction of 5.5 million K^2 was too conservative and the minimum would be much higher.”

    Steven discussed about conditions that could affect his prediction one way or another, all summer. He never changed his 5.5 number. The above is a lie.

    I think not, see below:

    stevegoddard in Sea Ice News #18:
    My forecast (dashed line below) minimum of 5.5 million (JAXA) continues to look conservative. It all comes down to what the winds do over the next few weeks. If the winds keep compressing the ice, the minimum may go a little below 5.5. If the winds quiesce, the minimum may come in a little above 5.5 – which is looking like a pretty good number right now.

    in Sea Ice News #17:
    Conclusion : There will probably be minimal ice loss during August. The minimum is likely to be the highest since 2006, and possibly higher than 2005. So far, my forecast of 5.5 million km² is looking very conservative.

    and in Arctic Forecast Verification Update
    So how is it doing so far? The image below shows that my forecast has been too conservative. The actual JAXA path (red) is above my forecast (dashed.)

  151. Jeff P says:
    August 31, 2010 at 1:07 pm

    “You’ve certainly changed your tune from earlier in the year when you were saying that your prediction of 5.5 million K^2 was too conservative and the minimum would be much higher.”

    So the minimum will be “much higher” than what? Oh I know what you had written earlier in the sentence “your prediction of 5.5 million K^2″.

    This means that you attibute to Steven him changing his prediction of his 5.5 minimum to something “:much higher” which he never did.

    No apology forthcoming.

    _____________________________________

    Djon says:
    August 31, 2010 at 3:38 pm
    Jon P,

    “When you were imputing the position that government is the model of efficiency to me, you were erecting a straw man since I hadn’t said any such thing but at least I knew what you were talking about.”

    Oh jeez I’m sorry this statement from you must have confused me about your view of the government’s abilities. “Also, do you disbelieve in the efficacy of government solutions to all problems too large or complex to be addressed by individual action or is climate change somehow a special case?”

    “Now with this reference to “team defense” I really have no idea what you’re talking about. Perhaps, instead of putting words in the mouths of others, you ought to use enough of them yourself to adequately explain your intended meaning.”

    Perhaps next time you will let Gunther respond to my comment directed at him, instead of trying to be cute with words (where you admitted failure in said endeavor) and trying to convince me of what Gunther meant.

  152. We need to loose 20 to 30K, does that much look likely?
    Sorry, should read:
    We need to loose 20 to 30K PER DAY, does that much look likely?

  153. Phil.

    What part of this statement (which you quoted) is beyond your comprehension?

    If the winds keep compressing the ice, the minimum may go a little below 5.5. If the winds quiesce, the minimum may come in a little above 5.5

    I have been talking about the wind all summer. Do you have a problem with mortals thinking about and discussing various outcomes, or do you prefer deities like Hansen?

  154. Steven,

    You posted

    “Given the triple point of water at 0C,”

    Do you know what the triple point of water is?

    It is not 0C, but you are fairly close, but what pressure?

  155. bob

    The ocean is at 1 bar atmospheric pressure. That is how it is defined.

    We did learn a little about phase diagrams in my graduate school geochemistry program.

    [snip]

  156. And on the subject of what SG did or didn’t predict, he invited readers to bookmark the page on which the following exchange appeared (June 2), so I did.

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/06/02/the-undeath-spiral/

    Steve Goddard:
    “Conclusion : Should we expect a nice recovery this summer due to the thicker ice? You bet ya. Even if all the ice less than 2.5 metres thick melted this summer, we would still see a record high minimum in the DMI charts.”

    Gneiss:
    I’m impressed by how unequivocally and often WUWT has committed to the proposition that Arctic sea ice is recovering, in disagreement with most Arctic researchers. As you say, these will be pages to bookmark.

  157. I think you should cut Steve some slack here.

    The minimun this year is barely going to be lower than 2009 so he’s not far off.

    The confounding factor was the recent El Nino. Normally such an El Nino would reduce the subsequent ice minimum more than this one has done so I’m satisfied that the recovery trend remains in place and should accelerate next year after the coming La Nina.

  158. Gee Phil I read your post twice and failed to see where Steven changed his 5.5 prediction.. I know those words of “looks” “looks like” and “so far” have very precise meaning that apply to the end prediction…lol. Jeff P. lied, get over it.

  159. Gneiss says:
    August 31, 2010 at 4:53 pm

    You forgot Steven’s update on June 3rd.

    “Anyone betting on the minimum extent needs to recognize that summer weather can dramatically effect the behaviour of the ice. The fact that the ice is thicker now is no guarantee that it won’t shrink substantially if the summer turns out to be very warm, windy or sunny. Joe Bastardi believes that it will be a warm summer in the Arctic. I’m not a weather forecaster and won’t make any weather predictions.”

    So let me ask you a question using your interpretation of what a prediction is. Who is going to be closer to their “prediction” Steven Goddard at 5.5+or Mark Serreze with his less than 2007 minimum?

  160. bob says:
    August 31, 2010 at 3:54 pm
    Steve,

    You posted,

    “Ice volume has increased year over year since 2008, and there will be a significant increase in the amount of multi-year ice in 2011. Those are the primary considerations in a recovery. Ask NSIDC if you don’t believe me.”

    And I did, or rather found that question in their FAQ file, and here is their answer

    “Even though the extent of Arctic sea ice has not returned to the record low of 2007, the data show that it is not recovering.”

    ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

    You addressed the wrong part of what he was talking about. Increase in volume and increase in mutliyear ice is what he was referring to when he said ask NSIDC if those are the primary considerations in determining if a recovery is happening. He did not say to ask the NSIDC if they will say a recovery is happening. Maybe he could have worded his phrases differently to make himself clearer to the reader. But still, if you had read what he was saying you could have caught what he meant.

    You may have seen what you wanted to see and then addressed that instead of what he ws really saying.

    NSIDC will not say a recovery is happening. The man in charge there says Arctic ice is in a death spiral. And another man from there has said there will soon be ice free summers in the Arctic. The NSIDC is an agency run by the government. They will be in line with what the government is saying. And right now the government is saying global warming is happening. They will not say otherwise.

    But anyone can see Arctic ice has grown since the 2007 loss. Multiyear ice is increasing and extent is growing. It is impossible to have a decrease in volume while those two things are occuring. It is simple math.

  161. Jon P writes,
    “So let me ask you a question using your interpretation of what a prediction is. Who is going to be closer to their “prediction” Steven Goddard at 5.5+or Mark Serreze with his less than 2007 minimum?”

    Steve’s “You bet ya” sounded like a prediction (of a record high minimum) to me. What did Mark say, that sounded like a prediction (of a record low minimum) to you?

    What this year’s final minimum will be I have my guess (like everyone else), but weather makes the final cut. Climate change is the trend, though, and that’s spiraling downward whether 2010 is the lowest or just the third-lowest yet measured.

    And Serreze has my vote any day on who understands more about Arctic ice. Think there’s one Arctic scientist on the planet who’d say Goddard?

  162. Jon P,

    If Anthony Watts was correct in identifying Günther Kirschbaum as “Neven”, then one reason to discuss his possible motivations is because he announced on his blog recently that he was going to be offline until Friday. Obviously, you couldn’t be expected to know that. Nevertheless, I can’t see that I’ve prevented him from posting here if he does happen to visit anytime soon, so I can’t see where you get your “Perhaps next time you will let Gunther respond to my comment directed at him…”.

    As to your putting words in my mouth, going by your excuse for thinking I consider government the model of efficiency, apparently you don’t understand the difference between “efficacy” and “efficiency”. For your information, the former means the capacity to produce an effect. It doesn’t imply that the effect is necessarily produced efficiently.

    Do you also have an explanation about why you apparently believed I had expressed an opinion that high temperatures in Moscow were clearly attributable to CAGW? Or are you conceding you put words in my mouth with that one?

    REPLY: Correction, I stated today in Announcements I’d be offline starting Friday perhaps through Saturday, not till Friday. -Anthony

  163. Gneiss,

    “And Serreze has my vote any day on who understands more about Arctic ice. Think there’s one Arctic scientist on the planet who’d say Goddard?”

    Then why waste your time here your highness? Other than to appeal to authority and ignore quotes that counter your interpretation of people’s words. Steven made the you betcha quote on June 2. I provided his update on June 3.

    Serreze ““Could we break another record this year? I think it’s quite possible,” said Mark Serreze of the National Snow and Ice Data Center in Boulder, Colo.

    “We are going to lose the summer sea-ice cover. We can’t go back.”

    “The issue is that, for the first time that I am aware of, the North Pole is covered with extensive first-year ice – ice that formed last autumn and winter. I’d say it’s even-odds whether the North Pole melts out,” said Dr Serreze. (on 2008)

    “Indeed, for the Arctic as a whole, the melt season started with even more thin ice than in 2007, hence concerns that we may even beat last year’s sea-ice minimum. We’ll see what happens, a great deal depends on the weather patterns in July and August,” he said. ”

    Oh I see Serreze can mention that sea ice cover can vary depending on weather, but Steven Goddard cannot, got it.

    I’ll say one thing, you sure make me laugh, your highness.

  164. Djon says:
    August 31, 2010 at 6:50 pm

    Wow talk about straying from the path of comprehension! When I said perhaps you should let Gunther respond, I meant you should let Gunther speak for himself.

    Thanks for the uneeded dictionary lesson as you need to look more closely how the two words are related.

    Since the objective of your posts is soley to turn and twist what people write, please find for me where I said “Djon said this”.

    I’ll be waiting.

    Just because you said I put words in your mouth does not make it so.

  165. Jon P writes,
    “Then why waste your time here your highness?”

    Ok, sarcasm comes easier to Jon P than naming one Arctic scientist.

    Serreze did say “Could we break another record this year? I think it’s quite possible.” That is not a prediction. There’s a difference, not terribly subtle.

    Will it snow on Christmas this year? You bet ya.
    Will it snow on Christmas this year? I think it’s quite possible.

  166. Gneiss says:
    August 31, 2010 at 7:18 pm

    When was I asked to name an Artic scientist? Ah just more false information from you.

    You are incomplete on your analysis (surprise surprise).

    Will it snow on Christmas this year? You bet ya. should be
    Can we expecy it to snow this year with increased cloud cover on Christmas this year? You bet ya.

    AND

    Of course depending on the extent of the weather on Christmas day it might or might not snow. I am not going to try to predict the weather on that day.

    You dishonesty grows with every post, I’m laughing at you, because I am dismissing you. You have no integrity.
    Next Day

  167. Sorry for the typos. I really should sit up when I type if Iam going to select lazy mode and not proof read before clicking “Post Comment”.

  168. Jon P writes,
    “When was I asked to name an Artic scientist? Ah just more false information from you.”

    Well, in the post you were attacking, I had asked you,
    “Think there’s one Arctic scientist on the planet who’d say Goddard?”

    Jon P goes on,
    “You dishonesty grows with every post, I’m laughing at you, because I am dismissing you. You have no integrity.”

    For a laughing man you write bitterly.

  169. stevengoddard,

    could you kindly explain how you produced the image: http://climateinsiders.files.wordpress.com/2010/08/paintimage1824.jpg

    i did some linear regressions on data available from GISS (is this your source?) http://data.giss.nasa.gov/work/gistemp/STATIONS//tmp.431042500000.1.1/station.txt

    but can’t come up with similar results. for example:

    start end slope span years d_t over period
    1911.0 1940.0 0.0600044493882133 29.0 1.74012903225818
    1979.0 2009.0 0.0593732802529347 30.0 1.78119840758804

    the last number in the rows reflect total change in temperature over the time period of the linear regression, but (eyeballing) your figure yields 3.7 degrees C and -4 degrees C over the same time period. both of your lines appear to be 2.1x exaggerated over calculated values

    code, as is my pleasure, freely available here, open for criticism, updating, and ideally, improvement http://github.com/bbttxu/wuwt-giss

    working for xtra credit, bbttxu

  170. Gneiss says:
    August 31, 2010 at 8:22 pm

    Well, in the post you were attacking, I had asked you,
    “Think there’s one Arctic scientist on the planet who’d say Goddard?”

    That question is to be answered with a yes or no. My answer would be no.
    So once again, when was I asked to name an Artic Scientist?

    “For a laughing man you write bitterly.” Ah, I have now met another expert at knowing emotional states from text! Let me be clear and honest (you’ll have to look up the”H” word) with you, I am laughing, I enjoy watching people make a fool of themself. For example, some people think a question requiring a yes or no for an answer, state that it actually was a request for a name! lol

  171. I really do not understand how both “sides” have to argue the Ice goes CONTINUOUSLY Up – – or CONTINUALLY Down.

    El Nino = Less Ice 2007
    La Nina = More 2008
    La Nina = More 2009
    El Nino = Less 2010
    La Nina = More (next year)
    … the HEART of the 60-year Cycle is that is AVERAGES going Up 30, and down 30 (post 2007, which was the “change” year: long Predicted).
    But each year CAN be Hot or Warm… Weather … VARIES.
    There are just MORE La Nina than El Nino, in the COOL HALF of the cycle.
    The Last Minima & Maxima (1954 & 1983 based on PIOMAS & Sub data respectively) trailed the change because once there is a lot of Ice, it tends to stay cold, & visa versa – – so even though Outnumbered since 2007, a single Warm El Nino can reverse several Las Ninas, as Ice that is THIN, melts off & exposes Dark Seawater, which Absorbs Sunlight MUCH better than Ice (94% vs 30-50% or 10% new Snow – – http://nsidc.org/seaice/processes/albedo.html ) — which then ADDS extra sunlight to the Melt.
    THUS: pure chance …
    … gives us a BIG Melt near Low Ice. Sometimes.
    Unlike the “Progressive” (AGW) melters, I thought it might ALL melt THIS year, as the El Nino was strong.
    … And I regard each year as a Coin-flip …
    … until it BUILDS UP. At that point – – we are safe for 50 years.
    Once it is thick enough to survive ONE freak year, the greater number of Cool La Nina Years will thicken the Ice for Decades & even after the Cycle flips, it will take decades to wear it down.
    In short : EVERY 60 YEARS WE ARE VULNERABLE TO FREAK WEATHER.

    PS: ALSO, I do think MAN is influencing the Climate – – the AGW lobby TRIES to make things worse – – the Warmer it gets, the MORE MONEY THEY GET – – by Decreasing Sulfur “the Great Global Cooler”, while increasing SOOT, and Natural Gas/Methane, they can steal more Tax Money. And, if Lovelock, Hansen, Lawson, etc. are correct, ALSO by writing the very Laws that are SUPPOSED to decrease CO2 – – in such a way as Even CO2 gets Increased.
    All these Years Industry was RANDOMLY adding chemicals, some Coolers, some Warmers – – to little net effect.. But NOW, we are killing the Coolers & increasing the Warmers. You can imagine what all the BLACK SOOT is doing to how much SUN the formerly white, reflective, ice, absorbs.

  172. Back to ice discussion, the preliminary 08/31 number is up for JAXA. Ice lost a touch above average, ~28000 km^2…2002-2009 average is 22402 km^2.

    This number puts this year right above 2005’s value, very likely to break it the next day of loss (or even on 08/31 if the final number differs considerably from the preliminary one). We’re now ~290000 km^2 ahead of 2008 and ~127000 km^2 behind 2009. Probability of ending above 2009 is now under 2.5%.

    Current extent is predicting a final extent of 5.05e6 km^2, and my own analysis method is giving 5.07e6 km^2.

    -Scott

  173. Jon P said
    August 31, 2010 at 1:46 pm
    Jeff P says:
    August 31, 2010 at 1:07 pm

    “You’ve certainly changed your tune from earlier in the year when you were saying that your prediction of 5.5 million K^2 was too conservative and the minimum would be much higher.”

    Steven discussed about conditions that could affect his prediction one way or another, all summer. He never changed his 5.5 number
    ______________________________________________________________

    He has actually, he is now predicting 5.1.

    Andy

  174. Man, it’s just like unmoderated .alt groups in here. Makes me feel all warm and fuzzy inside.

    [snip - Chalk it up to a temporary lack of moderation. Can't we please, please tone it down a bit for awhile? Out of respect for our gracious host? I've had to do more snipping in one day than in the last two months. ~ Evan]

  175. Jon P says:
    August 31, 2010 at 5:13 pm
    Gee Phil I read your post twice and failed to see where Steven changed his 5.5 prediction.. I know those words of “looks” “looks like” and “so far” have very precise meaning that apply to the end prediction…lol. Jeff P. lied, get over it.

    Actually he didn’t, he said:
    “You’ve certainly changed your tune from earlier in the year when you were saying that your prediction of 5.5 million K^2 was too conservative and the minimum would be much higher.”

    You claimed this was a lie, I showed that it was accurate. Jeff P did not say that “Steven changed his 5.5 prediction”.

  176. Alexander Feht says:
    August 30, 2010 at 1:06 am
    MarkG says:
    “I can’t speak for the US, but here in Canada we’ve had the furnace on for the last few days in what is supposed to be not just summer but one of the warmest summers since records began.”

    Same in South Colorado, last three nights! Summer is over before it’s over.
    Checkout the coverage of the US Open in NY, more 90º+ days, we had the first in April, certainly been a hot summer here.

  177. stevengoddard says:
    August 31, 2010 at 4:16 pm
    Phil.

    What part of this statement (which you quoted) is beyond your comprehension?

    [snip - substitute word "Please"] address what I was saying in context rather than extracting a partial quotation.

    If the winds keep compressing the ice, the minimum may go a little below 5.5. If the winds quiesce, the minimum may come in a little above 5.5

    However since you bring it up, the ice is certainly not compressed, if it were the minimum could easily be below 4.5.

    [I wish to break up this argument. Please address each other in a civil fashion, at least for a while. I don't care who started this or what all the other kids did or who got in an unfair number of whacks; I am ending it, forthwith. You-all can continue the discussion, but do so as if you were at the dinnertable with your maiden aunt. ~ Evan]

  178. stevengoddard says:
    August 31, 2010 at 10:32 pm
    AndyW

    Obviously it is now below 5.5.
    __________________________________

    Oh yes, I am not saying you can’t, it’s standard as the year progresses, just saying JonP’s statement was wrong so he needs to tone it down a bit. As an aside I think your latest is lilely to be closer than NSIDC’s 5.0.

    Andy

  179. Charles Wilson says:
    August 31, 2010 at 9:36 pm

    So are you saying that we really are likely “recovering” (if that word even applies to the cyclic variation you’re proposing) and we can expect to see an increase of the ice take hold over the next 5-10 years? Many sceptics have proposed similar things, though I don’t normally see them supply the numbers like you have.

    If what you’re proposing is right, then the ice actually performed very, very well this year. I’ve commented that the El Nino this year meant that beating 2009 was unlikely from the get-go, but from what you’re saying, it could have been much worse.

    -Scott

  180. stevengoddard says:
    August 30, 2010 at 8:24 pm
    bob

    My June forecast is almost exactly on target.

    In which case why had you already changed it by -0.4 to 5.1?

  181. [I wish to break up this argument. Please address each other in a civil fashion, at least for a while. I don't care who started this or what all the other kids did or who got in an unfair number of whacks; I am ending it, forthwith. You-all can continue the discussion, but do so as if you were at the dinnertable with your maiden aunt. ~ Evan]

    Kindly explain what was uncivil about this post, I responded in a polite manner to a taunting post.

    [snip - substitute word "Please"]
    It’s a bit late in the game to outlaw the word ‘cherry picking’ which has even been used in the title of posts on here (just a few days ago). But since you wish me to substitute a word try the following: ‘I was selectively quoted out of context in order to change the meaning of my statement’

  182. My final word.

    All my statements were accurate and I stand behind them. If people have difficulty understanding simple truths, that is there problem.

  183. To Charles Wilson:

    Mr. Wilson. I’ve actually started trying to read your lengthy posts and am finding them interesting. However, I have a request. I know that you are probably trying to show emphasis by using capital letters on words within sentences, sometimes just the first letter and sometimes the entire word. However, whether you realize it or not that can make it extremely difficult to follow your argument at times due to all the unconventional capitalization that is very distracting.

    Would you please consider reverting to normal punctuation/capitalization usage and possibly adopt html tags for bold and italics when you want to show emphasis?

    Thanks for considering this. Maybe it’s just me, but I find your posts very difficult to read fluently even though I’ve been interested in what you’re saying.

    Rod

  184. Jon P says:
    September 1, 2010 at 6:49 am
    My final word.

    All my statements were accurate and I stand behind them. If people have difficulty understanding simple truths, that is there problem.
    ________________________

    Unfortunately they are not, I showed that earlier, Steve has changed his forecast downwards as he has all right to do, similar to the “scientists” are doing. His initial estimate is better than some of those scientists, but that is beside the point. You were wrong and rather than admit it try to put the blame on other folk by saying “it is their problem .

    I tend to agree with JeffP and Phil here. From very early in the year both Anthony and Steve didn’t dispell the fact there would be another large recovery this year, around 5.8 or so. So it was suprising Steve eventually came out with 5.5. After that he passed more than one comment on it being an underestimate, so obviously that was the lower limit.

    The whole recovery scenario seems to have not been confirmed this year and instread it looks very much like 2o10 is simply walking back from 2010 to the general downwards trend,

    Andy

  185. back from 2007 of course .. on a works conference call and doing something more interesting as a multitask .. don’t know what I said to them, apart from “can you repeat that?” :D

    Andy

  186. Well jeez if Andy says so it must be true.

    Yes Steven said 5.1 after it went below 5.5, but that was never my point. In the context of Jeff P. lie of: “You’ve certainly changed your tune from earlier in the year when you were saying that your prediction of 5.5 million K^2 was too conservative and the minimum would be much higher.”

    I know you have difficulty understaning the meaning of the above starting with the word and and especially the “would be”. That sentence exactly means that Jeff P is stating that Steven changed his 5.5 prediction to something higher. It is your problem if you do not understand that.

    Guess it was not my final word, but when Andy makes false statements about me I’ll continue.

  187. Quick JAXA update…

    The revised number for 08/31 is up now and the extent is 9375 km^2 higher than previously posted. This puts the daily loss at 18906 km^2 and thus slightly lower than the 2002-2009 average (22402 km^2).

    The rest of my numbers from early can be adjusted by adding ~10000 km^2 to each.

    So where does the ice go from here? If it loses similarly to 2005/2007/2008, we’ll end near 5.0e6 km^2. If it loses similarly to 2004, we’ll see a finish close to 5.2e6 km^2. If it behaves like the other years in the JAXA record, it’ll finish around 5.1e6 km^2.

    Is anyone willing to speculate on either a record low or high loss from here on to put it above 2009 or as low as 4.9e6 km^2? That would take some guts…any takers? If the recent slowdown in loss is mostly due to reduced melting/early refreezing, it’s possible to still finish about 2009. If, however, it’s due entirely to divergence/spreading and we see “bad” weather for the next few weeks, I would say 4.9e6 km^2 is also easily possible.

    -Scott

  188. AndyW,

    My June forecast is currently off by 3%. NSIDC’s July forecast is currently off by 11%.

    Thickness has increased since 2009. Ice age has increased since 2009. Volume has increased since 2009.

  189. stevengoddard says:
    September 1, 2010 at 10:01 am
    AndyW,

    My June forecast is currently off by 3%. NSIDC’s July forecast is currently off by 11%.

    NSIDC’s June forecast was the same as your’s, it also remained unchanged in July.
    “Prediction by Stroeve et al. shown in the June outlook remains unchanged since it was based on spring ice age fields and an average summer circulation pattern. An alternative method is based on daily rates of decline from July 1 until the minimum is reached. Using average rates of decline based on data from 1979-2000 gives a minimum extent to be significantly lower than the 5.5 million square kilometers earlier forecasted by Stroeve et al.”
    Their August forecast was 5.0 as opposed to your 5.1, since the minimum has not yet been reached so it’s impossible to evaluate the July forecasts except that Stroeve’s will be exactly the same as yours and Meier’s is likely to improve whereas yours will likely get worse. Regarding the August forecasts it’s too close to call.

  190. Steve,

    Obviously, you need to go back to school lest you continue to embarrass yourself.

    you posted in answer to the question I posed as to what is the pressure of the triple point of water.

    “The ocean is at 1 bar atmospheric pressure. That is how it is defined.

    We did learn a little about phase diagrams in my graduate school geochemistry program. ”

    from here,

    http://www.sv.vt.edu/classes/MSE2094_NoteBook/96ClassProj/examples/triple.html

    the triple point of water is 0.01 C and 0.006 barr

  191. bob,

    The behaviour of water shows almost no variation between 0.1 bar and 10 bars.

    Obviously water exists in all three phases during the Arctic summer – solid liquid and gas. That is what a triple point means.

    You need to consider the log scale on the phase diagram.

  192. Bob,

    You are talking about partial vapor pressure. That’s what is 0.006 atmospheres, not the actual total pressure, lol.

  193. stevengoddard said:
    September 1, 2010 at 10:01 am
    AndyW,

    My June forecast is currently off by 3%. NSIDC’s July forecast is currently off by 11%.

    ____________________

    Yes, you are closest to the mark still and that should not be forgotten when people talk about being “busted”. You are high but the general concensus was too low and NSIDC quite a lot low. My 4.9 was too low also but closer than your 5.5. However I think I went down to 4.7 early on, I forget, too long ago!

    I think the main thing to consider here is that there is no recovery though at the end of the day in 2o10, that is the real deal.

    Andy

  194. Jon P said:
    September 1, 2010 at 9:20 am
    Well jeez if Andy says so it must be true.

    Yes Steven said 5.1 after it went below 5.5, but that was never my point. In the context of Jeff P. lie of: “You’ve certainly changed your tune from earlier in the year when you were saying that your prediction of 5.5 million K^2 was too conservative and the minimum would be much higher.”

    I know you have difficulty understaning the meaning of the above starting with the word and and especially the “would be”. That sentence exactly means that Jeff P is stating that Steven changed his 5.5 prediction to something higher. It is your problem if you do not understand that.

    Guess it was not my final word, but when Andy makes false statements about me I’ll continue.

    ________________________________

    My only statement against you is that you claimed

    “Steven discussed about conditions that could affect his prediction one way or another, all summer. He never changed his 5.5 number”

    Which is patently false, Steve said he did change to 5.1.

    You then said

    “Guess it was not my final word, but when Andy makes false statements about me I’ll continue.”

    I didn’t make false statements about you, I just quoted you. And you said “He never changed his 5.5 number”. And Steve’s number is now 5.1 as it a better summary of current estimate. So you were wrong, you didn’t do enough research.

    Your over the top defensive behaviour doesn’t help your cause either, it just shows you up.

    Andy

  195. Jon P says:
    September 1, 2010 at 9:20 am
    I know you have difficulty understaning the meaning of the above starting with the word and and especially the “would be”. That sentence exactly means that Jeff P is stating that Steven changed his 5.5 prediction to something higher. It is your problem if you do not understand that.

    I guess your problem was that you didn’t understand the meaning of “changed his tune” and the references to “conservative” and “too conservative”.

  196. A summer after an El Nino you would expect a lower minium of Arctic ice then the previous year without one. I made this forecast a year ago (not on here) when it become obvious an El Nino was on it’s way and could be at least moderate strength. This is down to the energy transfer via ocean and atmosphere from this Pacific region to the pole.

    BUT, so far is only just beating 2009 (even level) and still could finish level or slightly above (possible), depending on the data source with not long to go now. Though the main issue is very little difference between the two years despite an significant El Nino, is a sign of continuation from the recovering ice since 2007. Previous recent El Ninos have shown a much bigger decline of Arctic ice, so this much less reduced senario just enhances this evidence.

    With a La Nina developing which now looks likely to be a strong event, next year will likely see an Arctic summer ice minium higher than 2009 and 2010. The cooler circulation will reach the pole for the summer melting period of 2011.

  197. Andy “Your over the top defensive behaviour doesn’t help your cause either, it just shows you up.

    Pot meet Kettle

  198. stevengoddard says:
    September 1, 2010 at 11:34 am
    bob,

    The behaviour of water shows almost no variation between 0.1 bar and 10 bars.

    Obviously water exists in all three phases during the Arctic summer – solid liquid and gas. That is what a triple point means.

    But they can only exist simultaneously at one specific Temperature and vapor pressure, that is what the triple point is: 4.58 torr/0.61 kPa, 0.0098ºC for water.

    Regarding your education regarding phase diagrams hopefully it has advanced in the last year when you asserted quite vehemently the following canard:
    Steven Goddard says:
    June 10, 2009 at 10:42 am
    Phil,
    2-D Phase diagrams refer to atmospheric or ambient pressure, not vapor pressure or partial pressure. Why don’t you censor yourself instead of spreading nonsense?

    Which if you were correct would mean that there would be no observable triple point on this planet for water.

  199. Phil.

    You must be highly incensed about the changes NSIDC has made to their ice forecasts this summer. 5.5/4.74/5.0

    Tell your waitress not to put ice in your glass, because you believe water can’t exist in all three phases at the same time.

  200. Quoting Steven Goddard,

    it is so good that we finally have someone who is qualified to tell everyone else what is the correct way to think.

    No Steven, it is good that we have people who can call out, identify, and rebut pseudo-scientific sophistry.. It is important to remember that if you drown out a signal with meaningless noise you might keep real information and discussion, the kind adults should be having, from being understood.

  201. Tell your waitress not to put ice in your glass, because you believe water can’t exist in all three phases at the same time.

    OMG Steven, stop talking before you embarrass yourself even further. Something I wouldn’t think possible. Phil. will be taking you to the wood shed for that one.

    • No need to wait for Phil. I’ll do it.

      http://www.physlink.com/education/askexperts/ae282.cfm

      Question:

      How can water co-exist at three phases (solid, liquid and gas)?

      Answer:

      Water exists in three distinct phases at something called the triple point. Zero degrees celsius is defined by the triple point of water which is 273.16K at 611.2 Pa.

      At this temperature water is in the process of changing from a solid state into the liquid phase or visa versa. Molecules in the liquid phase can lose a bit of energy and solidify whilst solid water (ice) can gain some energy and melt. This can be seen in melting ice where the solid ice exists for some time while the exposed surface melts.

      Molecules in a liquid don’t all have the same energy. The energies of the molecules can vary from a finite minimum, which would mark the transition back to a solid phases, up to an infinite energy (although the probability of this occuring is infinitely small). The average energy of the molecules gives us the temperature of the liquid. Statistical thermodynamics can map out the energy distribution of the water molecules. At a certain energy molecules will have enough energy to evaporate, even if the water temperature is 0 degrees C.

      Because of these two effects it is possible for the water to exist as solid, liquid and gas at the same time.
      ==============
      More:

      http://www.sv.vt.edu/classes/MSE2094_NoteBook/96ClassProj/examples/triplpt.html

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

      And a video from a lab here:

      http://www.metacafe.com/watch/658122/the_triple_point_of_water_experiment/

      =====
      Steven, you really need to stop.

  202. Triple point Shrimple point…Will that Knowledge help you figure out when the Arctic Ice will stop melting?…I measure 8 temps at 77 north around the Arctic that have been Poo pawed because they are land based stations but since all of them are coastal stations & are close enough to the Ocean I have been able to find that at an ave of 34 degrees the ice loss slows to a drip….Too boring for you all but Sweet Science to me!…I’m sticking to my Small Mind/Small Town prediction made back on Aug 23rd for a leveling off of Ice melt after the end of Aug & slowing to a drip after the 6th of Sept. (Predict was based on long range GFS weather model)

  203. That may be too complicated Anthony. Here is a simplified explanation:

    When you have a glass containing water and ice, it is unlikely that it is simultaneously boiling.

  204. Anthony Watts says:
    September 1, 2010 at 2:59 pm
    No need to wait for Phil. I’ll do it.
    =====
    Steven, you really need to stop.

    Thank you Anthony.

  205. At 0C, you have water in all three phases in the Arctic, and a small change in temperature can shift the balance rapidly – causing significant changes in ice extent.

    That was my point, which bob disagreed with.

  206. OMG, Steven stop talking. You said,

    Given the triple point of water at 0C, the behaviour of the ice can change dramatically with a very small change in the weather.

    The triple point of water at zero C is at a pressure of a pressure of 611.2 Pa. This pressure is quite low and a pretty good vacuum, normal sea level barometric pressure is 101,300 Pa for comparison.

    It is unlikely you find sea ice behaving as if it was in vacuum.

    Steven, seriously this is not fun for me. It is getting sad beyond belief.

  207. jeez

    So you are suggesting that that we don’t find ice, meltwater and water vapour at the same place in the Arctic at the same time?

    That is the definition of the triple point. The world does not exist in a test tube.

  208. If you have been watching the DMI temperature graph and ice extent data, it is abundantly clear that a small change in temperature is correlated with a large change in rate of ice loss. One degree makes a huge difference.

    That is because the ice straddles the triple near the margins of the summer.

  209. Steve you have created a rhetorical black hole. There is no escape from this one.

    There are only four paths available to you.

    You can change the subject.

    You can be dignified and admit you were completely wrong about triple points and phases.

    You can disappear into the hole.

    You can continue to embarrass yourself with nonsensical defenses. That appears to be your current course of action. By your usage all temperatures are triple points of all substances at all pressures. I can hold ice in my hand on a hot summer day, while drinking water in a sauna.

  210. Um, so water clearly isn’t at the triple point in the Arctic, but if the relative humidity above the water is 100% (partial pressure = 611 Pa) and the ice/water/air are all at 0 C, isn’t the behavior essentially the same as if it was?

    Anyway, can we get back to talking about how the rest of the season is going to turn out?

    -Scott

  211. jeez

    Please discuss science rather than launching ad homs.

    Liquid water, ice, and water vapour coexist quite nicely in the Arctic summer. That is exactly the definition of a triple point.

    • There have been no ad homs.

      Your defenses are nonsensical. They show complete ignorance of the subject. You arguments are demonstrably false. They show you refuse to understand things which are explained to you. I do not ever attack you, your credentials, your race, your lifestyle, your education. Those would be ad homs. I attack your ideas and behavior on this blog, which is less than exemplary.

      Read this statement again. It may help you comprehend what a triple point is:

      When you have a glass containing water and ice, it is unlikely that it is simultaneously boiling.

  212. Obviously ice is not stable above 0C. Liquid water is not stable below 0C. The triple point has to be at 0C, just as the phase diagrams show. You are looking at simple problem under a high power microscope and confusing yourself.

  213. I see there is confusion here about the triple point and at zero (0.0 to 0.4c etc) centrigrade of course solid ice melts and changes state to liquid water. We have a mixture of both forms at zero because it is a slow progress, but thanks to the latent heat flux on the planet this liquid water at this temperature can evaporate. Hence, some molcules can gain enough energy to form water vapor and all 3 different states occur at the same time because both are slow transitions.

    The phase diagrams don’t take latent heat flux via shortwave radiation into account and of course it should be obvious by now that water vapour forms in the atmosphere due to latent heat flux, despite being much lower than the boling point of water at 100c. The planet doesn’t behave exactly like the phase diagram or we would have no water vapour in our atmosphere because it is too cold.

  214. Imagine you are sitting in a park in Phoenix, holding a glass of water with ice in it.

    The temperature outside is 45 degrees C. But the temperature at the ice/water boundary is 0C. That is the only temperature which ice and (fresh) water can coexist. Thus, the triple point of water has to be at 0C.

    Eventually the ice will melt, and the temperature of the water will rise – above the triple point.

    • This is just too sad. I can’t do it anymore. Steven you can’t use one-half of a scientific definition.

      Water exists in three distinct phases at something called the triple point. Zero degrees celsius is defined by the triple point of water which is 273.16K at 611.2 Pa.

      at 611.2 Pa

      at 611.2 Pa

      at 611.2 Pa

      That is near vacuum. At that temperature and pressure, water is freezing, melting, boiling, and condensing all at the same time. That is the triple point. Not the heat of vaporization or the heat of fusion, which you are so keen to focus on.

      Near vacuum behavior is not occurring in the Arctic except perhaps in somebody’s laboratory. It is irrelevant to any discussions of Arctic ice behavior. The triple point of water is irrelevant to any discussion of Sea Ice behavior because none of this is occurring in near vacuum conditions.

      Steven, this is your last thread on WUWT. You are going out on the most embarrassing note I could imagine. I could not have conceived of a script where you could behave worse.

  215. jeez says:
    September 1, 2010 at 3:47 pm

    When you have a glass containing water and ice, it is unlikely that it is simultaneously boiling.

    But it is boiling (and sublimating) if the partial pressure above the liquid/solid is below the vapor pressure at that temperature (someone said 611 Pa earlier). Boiling points are subject to both temperature and (partial) pressure, and you’ve neglected the pressure.

    Regarding the last sentence in:

    jeez says:
    September 1, 2010 at 3:38 pm

    That’s not a valid comparison because it’s not at equilibrium…the ice you would be holding would be a different temperature than you, the summer day, the sauna, etc.

    The Arctic is not at the triple point of pure water. But it’s a mixed system, and could potentially be at/near the triple point of the mixed system. If the ice/water are at 0 C (and yes, I know, dissolved salts lower the freezing point, this is an example) and the relative humidity is 100%, then the system is at equilibrium with water vapor, liquid water, and ice all present in equilibrium. Now, Steven did not make this clear in his original comment (and arguably not in the comments since). I don’t see why this argument can’t be cleared up with that simple clarification (that this is a mixed system and all can be present in equilibrium). That way we can get back to serious discussion of the topic at hand.

    -Scott

  216. Phase diagrams represent pure equilibrium conditions, which never exist in nature. It is impossible to completely insulate any system from outside fluxes of heat, because there are no perfect insulators. Thus, phase diagrams are theoretical.

    They do however provide tremendously valuable information, if you understand their limitations.

  217. Scott,

    For all practical purposes, the Arctic at 0C is at the triple point. Liquid water, ice and water vapour all coexist.

    As I stated in my last post, it is impossible to create a perfect triple point equilibrium condition, so we scientists deal with the real world instead.

  218. jeez

    You are really overstepping here and behaving incredibly badly.

    REPLY: No he’s not, you are. And since you won’t take the hints, I’m closing the thread with this image:
    Triple Point of Water

    Note the pressure of the triple point at “T”. It is not an ambient earthly surface pressure.

    The single combination of pressure and temperature at which liquid water, solid ice, and water vapour can coexist in a stable equilibrium occurs at exactly 273.16 K (0.01 °C) and a partial vapour pressure of 611.73 pascals (ca. 6.1173 millibars, 0.0060373057 atm)

    – Anthony

    Update: I should have added sources, here they are.
    Image: http://www.sv.vt.edu/classes/MSE2094_NoteBook/96ClassProj/examples/triplpt.html

    Last paragraph: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triple_point

    • No Steven,

      I tried to tell you to stop but you continue digging your hole. I gave a simplified example to help explain your error. You don’t see a lot of boiling sea water in the Arctic which would indicate triple point conditions, but you continue to embarrass yourself.

      If you wished to say that Sea Ice behavior can be unpredictable because Sea Ice exists close to the temperature of the heat of fusion, that would make some sense. By bringing in water vapor and triple points you clearly demonstrate that you either have no idea what your are talking about or are willing to deceive. I will give you the benefit of the doubt and believe simply that for some reason you refuse to understand that you have no idea what your are talking about.

      But it is clear that what your are saying about triple points is utter nonsense. This is not an ad hom. This is fact.

Comments are closed.