Sea Ice News – Call for Arctic sea-ice forecasts, plus forecast poll

It has been awhile since I’ve done a sea-ice report. That said, not much of note has been going on in the sea-ice arena, we are in that time of year when all of the years converge into a tighter grouping. But as usual, the race to forecast the minimum is on again. Will be be another Serreze death spiral media opportunity? Or will it be ho-hum- nothing to see here, move along?
JAXA AMSR-E Sea Ice Extent -15% or greater – click to enlarge

Anyone can submit a forecast to ARCUS, all you need is a rationale and you have to put your name on it. Even “SWAG” qualifies as a rationale, though there are many who will use models and statistical techniques to try predicting the sea-ice minimum.

I’m going to give WUWT readers an opportunity to make a forecast for submission, based on voting. See the poll at the end. I’ll run this poll each month in the week before the deadline, and we’ll see how we do as the minimum approaches. The value used by ARCUS is the NSIDC value as they say here:

The sea ice monthly extent for September 2010 was 4.9 million square kilometers, based on National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC) estimates.

So don’t be using the JAXA graph to forecast minimums, though it it useful for determining short term trends as it is more responsive than the NSDIC graph below, which is averaged.

http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/daily_images/N_stddev_timeseries.png

Here is what past reports looked like:

Figure 2a. Distributions of Outlook estimates for September 2010

Figure 2a. Distributions of Outlook estimates for September 2010 arctic sea ice extent based on May data.
Figure 2b. Distributions of Outlook estimates for September 2010

Figure 2b. Distributions of Outlook estimates for September 2010 arctic sea ice extent based on June data.
Figure 2c. Distributions of Outlook estimates for September 2010. Observed September minimum sea ice extent denoted by the red dashed line.

Figure 2c. Distributions of Outlook estimates for September 2010 arctic sea ice extent based on July data. Observed September minimum sea ice extent denoted by the red dashed line.

Here’s the details on making a submission:

Call for 2011 Sea Ice Outlook Contributions – June Report (Based on May Data)

May 6, 2011

Call for 2011 Sea Ice Outlook Contributions June Report (Based on May Data) Study of Environmental Arctic Change (SEARCH)

Pan-Arctic Outlook submission deadline: Tuesday, 31 May 2011
Regional Outlook submission deadline: Friday, 27 May 2011

For further information, please go to: http://www.arcus.org/search/seaiceoutlook/index.php Or contact: Helen Wiggins, ARCUS Email: helen@arcus.org ——————–

The Sea Ice Outlook (SIO) organizers are soliciting pan-arctic and regional outlooks for the first report of the season, the June report (based on May data). We encourage past and new contributors to participate. The organizers have planned for several improvements this year, including increasing attention to error estimates, addition of sea ice thickness information where available, additional outreach efforts, and further development of the “Data Resources” webpage (http://www.arcus.org/search/seaiceoutlook/data.php – please send any relevant links for us to add). We also have provided a tentative schedule for the entire season, which is available at the bottom of this message.

**ALL Outlook submissions should be sent directly to Helen Wiggins, ARCUS, at: helen@arcus.org, with the following subject lines, as relevant:

** PAN-ARCTIC OUTLOOK – [YOUR LAST NAME] REGIONAL OUTLOOK – [YOUR LAST NAME] OUTLOOK FOR BOTH REGIONAL AND PAN-ARCTIC – [YOUR LAST NAME]

A Word document is preferred for ease of formatting to PDF files and extracting images for the website – we will not edit your individual submission and will not post your Word documents.

SUBMITTING A PAN-ARCTIC OUTLOOK

Pan-arctic Outlook contributions should include:

1. Extent Projection Provide a sea ice projection for the September monthly mean arctic sea ice extent (in million square kilometers).

2. Methods/Techniques Provide the type of estimate (heuristic, statistical, ice-ocean model ensemble runs, etc.).

3. Rationale Include a short paragraph on the physical rationale for the estimate.

4. Executive Summary Provide a short paragraph that summarizes your outlook contribution in two or three sentences.

5. Estimate of Forecast Skill (if available) If possible, please include any estimates of forecast skill, uncertainty, or error associated with your prediction. This year, we will add error estimates to the summary bar chart of outlook estimates, as appropriate. This year we would also like to include a brief discussion of ice thickness in the monthly reports, so please include any relevant information on ice thickness (or age), if available. Pan-Arctic

Outlook submission deadline: Tuesday, 31 May 2011. All Outlooks should be sent to: Helen Wiggins, ARCUS Email: helen@arcus.org

SUBMITTING A REGIONAL OUTLOOK

Regional Outlook contributions should include:

1. Region of Interest While more specific sub-regions may be identified, at a minimum, please specify which of the following the outlook applies to: Arctic Regions:

- Beaufort-Chukchi Seas

- East Siberian-Laptev Seas

- Kara-Barents-Greenland Seas

- Canadian Arctic Archipelago and Nares Strait

- Hudson Bay

- Sea of Okhotsk

- Bering Sea Shipping Routes:

- Northwest Passage

- Northeast Passage (Northern Sea Route)

- Arctic Bridge (Murmansk-Churchill)

2. Sea Ice Parameter Provide a regional pattern or a single value estimate of phonological stages (i.e., melt onset, freeze onset, break-up and freeze-up dates, length of open water season) or monthly ice concentration, ice area, and ice extent. Please indicate whether you expect ice conditions to be similar, lighter (i.e., lower ice concentrations, earlier melt onset, earlier break-up, later freeze-up), or heavier (i.e., greater ice concentrations, later melt onset, later break-up, earlier freeze-up) than those of summer 2010.

3. Outline of Methods/Techniques Provide the type of estimate (heuristic, statistical, ice-ocean model, traditional knowledge, etc.) with a brief description of the methodology and a short paragraph describing the physical rationale for the estimate.

4. Estimate of Forecast Skill If possible, please include any estimates of forecast skill, uncertainty, or error associated with your prediction.

5. Improving Outlook Detail and Accuracy (Optional) What information would be needed to improve the level of detail provided in your Regional Outlook or increase the accuracy/confidence in your prediction? Regional Outlook submission deadline: Friday, 27 May 2011. All Outlooks should be sent to: Helen Wiggins, ARCUS Email: helen@arcus.org

TENTATIVE 2011 SEA ICE OUTLOOK SCHEDULE JUNE REPORT (using May data). Deadline for contributions: Regional – 27 May; Pan-Arctic – 31 May. Publish reports online: 10 June.

JULY REPORT (using June data). Deadline for contributions: 31 June. Publish reports online: 15 July.

AUGUST REPORT (using July data). Deadline for contributions: 29 July. Publish reports online: 12 August.

SEPTEMBER REPORT (brief updates based on August data). Deadline for contributions: 30 August. Publish reports online: 14 September. MINIMUM ANNOUNCEMENT – Based on the National Snow and Ice Data Center’s (NSIDC) announcement for minimum.

POST-SEASON SYNOPSIS (exact dates dependent on when minimum is reached). Deadline for contributions: early October. Publish post-season synopsis: late October. For further information on the Sea Ice Outlook, please go to: http://www.arcus.org/search/seaiceoutlook/index.php. Or contact: Helen Wiggins, ARCUS Email: helen@arcus.org

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

WUWT poll for sea ice forecast:

Use the WUWT Sea Ice Page to get your bearings before voting.

Only one vote per person, and I have engaged the security features to prevent vote stuffing. Poll will close May 30th at midnight PST, and the results will be submitted to ARCUS on the day of the deadline:

Pan-Arctic Outlook submission deadline: Tuesday, 31 May 2011

About these ads

177 thoughts on “Sea Ice News – Call for Arctic sea-ice forecasts, plus forecast poll

  1. I say +5.5 this year….
    …I’m doing it the same way they do it with the multi-billion dollar computers

    guessing a trend…………….

  2. I would expect a moderate ice melt, with a minimum extent of 5.4 sq. kms. We have had a nice La Nina this winter. Cold ENSO events are usually followed by some recovery in extent, while El Nino years often produce extra ice melt (like in 2005, 2007 or 2010).

    It is ‘very likely’ that NSIDC will publish something more alarming as a forecasted value.

  3. Estimate: 5.6 million km2, plus or minus 0.2 million.

    Method: SWAG + “wishcasting”

    You should offer a prize to increase participation :-)

    Regards,
    Ric

  4. The problem with the above graphs are that they only show areas with >15% ice cover.

    Suppose within an area, there is 14 % ice cover – the ice being in the form of icebergs. 9/1oths of the volume of those icebergs is below the surface .

    Imagine those icebergs were chopped up into 10 equal pieces- that would more than cover the whole area….

  5. I guessed in the 4.8-4.9 million km^2 range. Just a guess right now. I should pull out my sea ice spreadsheet and get serious soon.

    Also, Tamino stated his method and estimate last year for this year’s minimum @ 4.63 million km^2. Someone should place a vote for him. ;-)

    -Scott

  6. Anything that does not include ice volume as well as extent is……..well…..pointless.
    Let us face it……it is all guesswork really. Always has been…probably always will be.

  7. 5m square kilometres – give or take 10%, depending on the weather.

    Anything over that, the NSIDC will attribute to “freak weather conditions”. Anything under will be spun as a continuation of Mark Serreze’s death spiral. Yawn.

  8. I am going for greater than 6 million (6.3). The weather patterns, both globally and in Australia (Cairns), are very reminiscent of the mid 1970’s.
    For example, global flood, cyclone and tornado activity is very similar to 1974.
    In 1974 there was a very positive sea ice anomaly in the Arctic region, facilitated in part by a north westerly wind pattern. I can see this happening again given the current atmosperic circulation conditions.

    Marine_Shale

  9. I’ve wondered what effect the icebreakers have ferrying all these “teams” to look for the “rotten ice.”

  10. After careful consideration of the effects that wind, currents, temperatures, icebreakers, tourists, soot?, sunshine, clouds, rambunctious polar bears, fleeing seals, might have on said extent.
    I will await the results with great anticipation, expecting the extent to be larger than last year.

  11. I went for 5.3 – 5.4. With all the cold that’s been experienced where people actually live, I don’t think there’ll be enough to make it a barnstorming year this year.

  12. In the spirit of Mann I am forcasting +/- 20%

    5 million sq km +/- 1 million km :) You need a PhD to be this successful with forcasting!

  13. I would guess a modest bounce back to the 2009 level, i.e. 5.2-5.3 M (that’s what I voted).

  14. I voted for 4.9 to 5.0, a P.O.O.M.A.* number.

    * POOMA stands for “preliminary order of magnitude approximation.” Really.

  15. I thought the ice was gone already. I mean wasn’t Hillary just up there to save the ice?/sarc off

  16. There will be no ice at all.

    The Arctic Ocean will be full of tropical coral atolls.

    We’re all doomed.

  17. The 2011 jaxa line through march and April looked eerily similar to the 2010 line.. just a lot lower. 2011 hasn’t had the huge melt that 2010 did but it’s still dropped a lot and hasn’t caught last year yet. I’ll be nervous until it does; thankfully there is little correlation between spring data and the September minimum. I’m not smart enough to guess anything though.

  18. Here is my forecast
    2011 Minimum Extent:
    September 22nd 2011.
    6.03 M sq km

    Trending up from 2007

  19. Seems like everyone here is choosing low numbers, below average levels of even one decade ago. Last year on this blog there was much talk about recovery, but I do not see it now. Were the scientists were right after all? That arctic ice is going down, it is just a question of how fast?

    For myself, I would bet with Tamino, 4.63 +/- 0.9. His model looks simple and clear. It worked very well last year, we will see if it works again.

  20. jack morrow says: May 19, 2011 at 4:18 pm

    I’ve wondered what effect the icebreakers have ferrying all these “teams” to look for the “rotten ice.”

    It’s hard to tell this year, because for some reason the US Coast Guard Icebreaker Science Operation site has added a login to their Realtime Tracking Map:

    http://www.icefloe.net/healy-realtime-track-map

    However, if you look back Healys Cruisetracks for 2006;

    http://www.icefloe.net/images/HLY-06annot.pdf

    2007;

    http://www.icefloe.net/docs/HLY-07track.pdf

    and 2008;

    http://www.icefloe.net/docs/healy2008.pdf

    it seems intuitive that having dozens of icebreakers breaking up the ice might have a measurable impact sea ice area and extent, especially when the ice spreads and when it blows into warmer waters…

  21. I’m thinking an extent around 2005’s extent. Recovery should continue since it is the negative phase of ENSO, and continue the recovery since the flip of the PDO in 2007.

  22. BA says:
    May 19, 2011 at 6:49 pm
    “For myself, I would bet with Tamino,”…
    =======
    On this post you make your own bets, it’s free, we are only having fun.

  23. Would be essential to have an arctic wind forecast for a guess, and perhaps the amount of icebraker / environmentalist ships traffic, cutting off sea ice slices.

  24. Anthony, you forgot the zero km^2 choice. Were you deliberately excluding RR Kampen ??

    Heh heh heh, and Al Gore in two years !!!

  25. Based on my tea leaves,there will be high concentrations of ice on the eastern (Russian) side of the arctic throughout the melting season. The western side will have heavy melting, suggesting a prolonged ice-free period in the area of the northwest passage, possibly leaving it navigable for extended periods. There is a certain clumping together of tea leaves in the center of the cup, suggesting unusually heavy ice conditions at the pole itself.

    As a side note, there are also some tea leaves sticking to the sides of the cup. I take this to mean that there will be an anomalous volume of icebergs pushed out of the arctic basin, possibly by freak circumpolar currents or by Rossaby waves.

    So to the actual number. I close my eyes and lower the spoon carefully into the cup. There is a soft thud as it strikes the bottom, meaning it has hit leaves (ice). 5 times it hits ice before it makes a clang, meaning water. I take anote of 5, and repeat the procedure. This time around there were only 2 thuds before the clang came, so I make a note of the number 2.

    So: 5.2 million square kilometers.

    ( I could have done it a third time, to get an additional decimal, but as the cup was the standard smallish granny-type tea cup, the resolution simply wasn’t great enough. I would need a much bigger cup. More funding is required).

  26. I’m in for 5.5+

    Two snowy N.H. winters on the trot. La Nina just fading (lag of sea temps to Air temps).

    S.H. (in N.Z.) has had a cool, wet summer and temps starting to drop quickly.

    Delayed effects of Solar minimum.

  27. The whole notion of “15% or greater” is rather absurd.

    Suggest using the sum of the percentage for each area measured.
    It would produce a more honest representation of the amount of ice.

  28. BA says: “…For myself, I would bet with Tamino, 4.63 +/- 0.9. His model looks simple and clear. It worked very well last year, we will see if it works again.”

    You sure about that, BA? That’s not a bet, that’s a 40% error range! No wonder it “worked.” Does Tamino go skeet shooting with picnic platters? What a sport!

  29. it seems intuitive that having dozens of icebreakers breaking up the ice might have a measurable impact sea ice area and extent, especially when the ice spreads and when it blows into warmer waters…

    Would be essential to have an arctic wind forecast for a guess, and perhaps the amount of icebraker / environmentalist ships traffic, cutting off sea ice slices.

    This is funny! Have you people ever seen photographs or satellite views or read expedition reports about what the arctic ocean is like?

  30. You sure about that, BA? That’s not a bet, that’s a 40% error range!

    I should not have said ‘bet’, what I mean is I think Tamino’s guess is good enough for me at this point in the season.

    Tamino’s guess last year was 4.8. The actual value was 4.9. That looks pretty close to me.

  31. Manfred says: May 19, 2011 at 7:09 pm

    Would be essential to have an arctic wind forecast for a guess, and perhaps the amount of icebraker / environmentalist ships traffic, cutting off sea ice slices.

    It is not just about environmentalist’s jaunts, per this report from Baltic Ice Management (BIM) on their 2008 – 2009 season;

    http://portal.fma.fi/sivu/www/baltice/BIM_Joint_Annual_2008_2009.pdf

    the chart on page 10 it seems to indicate that they had 23 icebreakers in use at the peak of their icebreaking season. Much of it is about opening and maintaining shipping lanes, cruise ship routes and fishing grounds.

    Per the “Arctic Marine Shipping Assessment 2009 Report. Arctic Council, April 2009, second printing”;

    http://www.pame.is/images/stories/PDF_Files/AMSA_2009_Report_2nd_print.pdf

    on Page 160;
    “Spring break-up to mark the start of summer navigation will vary and, as happens now in more southerly seas, shippers eager to start work will test the limits of their vessels in ice.”

    On Page 4;
    “There were approximately 6,000 individual vessels, many making multiple voyages, in the Arctic region during the AMSA survey year; half of these were operating on the Great Circle Route in the North Pacific that crosses the Aleutian Islands. Of the 6,000 vessels reported, approximately 1,600 were fishing vessels.”

    this on Pages 141 – 142;
    “The AMSA has developed the world’s first activity-based estimate of Arctic marine shipping emissions using empirical data for shipping reported by Arctic Council member states. Emissions were calculated for each vessel-trip for which data was available for the base year 2004. The 515,000 trips analyzed represent about 14.2 million km of distance traveled (or 7.7 million nautical miles) by transport vessels; fishing vessels represent over 15,000 fishing vessel days at sea for 2004. Some results could be an underestimation of current emissions, given potential underreporting bias and anecdotal reports of recent growth in international shipping and trade through the Arctic.”

    on Page 79;
    “A specific example of where cruise ship traffic is increasing at a rapid rate is off the coast of Greenland. As Table 5.3 shows, cruise ship visits and the number of passengers visiting Greenland has increased significantly between 2003 and 2008. For example, between 2006 and 2007, port calls into Greenland increased from 157 to 222 cruise ships. The number of port calls in 2006 combined for a total of 22,051 passengers, a number that represents nearly half of Greenland’s total 2006 population of 56,901.

    In 2008, approximately 375 cruise ship port calls were scheduled for Greenland ports and harbors, more than double the number of port calls seen in 2006.”

    But the environmentalists do their share of Arctic travel, i.e. on page 84:
    “During 2004-2008, there were 33 icebreaker transits to the North Pole for science and tourism. An increasing number of icebreakers and research vessels are conducting geological and geophysical research throughout the central Arctic Ocean related to establishing the limits of the extended continental shelf under UNCLOS.”

    And it’s not just about breaking up sea ice, on Page 5 it says that;
    “Black carbon emissions from ships operating in the Arctic may have
    regional impacts by accelerating ice melt.”

    on Page 140:
    “Shipping’s contribution to regional and global impacts from emissions such as CO2, NOx and SO2 have been evaluated by scientists and shown to be significant enough to motivate policy action. However, environmental and climate effects of NOx and ozone, sulfur aerosols and clouds, and black carbon particles in the Arctic are only beginning to be understood. Black carbon has been proven to have significant climate forcing effects, in addition to its effects on snow and ice albedo, accelerating the retreat of Arctic sea ice.”

    and on Page 137;
    “The 2004 U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy reported that, while at sea, the average cruise-ship passenger generates about eight gallons of sewage per day and an average cruise ship can generate a total of 532,000 to 798,000 liters of sewage and 3.8 million liters of wastewater from sinks, showers and laundries each week, as well as large amounts of solid waste (garbage). The average cruise ship will also produce more than 95,000 liters of oily bilge water from engines and machinery a week. Sewage, solid waste and oily bilge water release are regulated through MARPOL. There are no restrictions on the release of treated wastewater.”

    This Arctic Sea Ice minimum forecasting is a tough business…

  32. BA says: May 19, 2011 at 8:33 pm

    Have you people ever seen photographs or satellite views or read expedition reports about what the arctic ocean is like?

    Yep, a number of them. Once you’ve read through what I posted above, let me know if you have any other questions…

  33. Once you’ve read through what I posted above, let me know if you have any other questions…

    Sure, thanks for helping. I know about the north pole tourists, that’s not many ships, but your other numbers are bigger. Which of these areas you mention normally still have much ice area in September?
    Baltic Sea?
    Aleutian Islands?
    Arctic marine shipping?
    Cruise ships off Greenland?

  34. I picked “4.6 to 4.8″ since it is twice as likely as “4.7 to 4.8″. But I suppose it’s an error for “4.6 to 4.7″. Besides, that will be very close to last year’s minimum, and I find the model “it will be like last year, roughly” more reliable than anything else I’ve seen.

  35. 5 million sq. km was my choice….however, the ice will continue to retain total mass (isn’t that a Yes lyric?) and polar ice recovery will begin again in the fall.

    Thickness counts.

  36. BA says: May 19, 2011 at 9:09 pm

    Which of these areas you mention normally still have much ice area in September?

    Greenland Sea has some;

    http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/recent365.anom.region.5.html

    as does the Canadian Archipelago;

    http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/recent365.anom.region.12.html

    Laptev Sea;

    http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/recent365.anom.region.9.html

    and East Siberia Sea

    http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/recent365.anom.region.9.html

    The Kara Sea is interesting in how the anomaly shot up during last June:

    http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/recent365.anom.region.7.html

    It’s good to have icebreakers around to help accelerate the breakup and melting processes. Per this Coast Guard Compass article;

    http://coastguard.dodlive.mil/index.php/2009/06/coast-guard-and-the-arctic-part-2/

    “Coast Guard Cutter Healy is the largest of the heavy ice breakers in the Coast Guard. Her ice breaking capabilities are 4.5 ft @ 3 knots continuous and 8 ft of ice when backing and ramming. Backing and ramming is pretty much what it sounds like and I don’t mean how you parallel parked a car when you were a teenager.”

    “Key sea and air lanes need to remain open as a matter of international legal right and not depend on the approval from nations along the routes, so that vessels like Healy can get where they need to go and get there quickly.”

    If you look at the icebreaker Healy’s Cruise Track for 2007;

    http://www.icefloe.net/docs/HLY-07track.pdf

    it is easy to see how effective a single Icebreaker can be at breaking up the ice.

    And in terms of shipping in the “Arctic Marine Shipping Assessment 2009 Report. Arctic Council, April 2009, second printing”;

    http://www.pame.is/images/stories/PDF_Files/AMSA_2009_Report_2nd_print.pdf

    on Page 84 “Map 5.6 demonstrates the surge in vessel activity in the summer season, when all of the community re-supply takes place and most bulk commodities are shipped out and supplies brought in for commercial operations. Summer is also the season when all of the passenger and cruise vessels travel to the region.”

  37. 5.2 – 5.3 is my guess, based upon eyeballing the convergence of Ley lines over the Heights of High Wycombe in juxtaposition with leaves of the tree next door shading the sun’s life giving rays from my keyboard at this precise moment in time. In other words, how many times can you cross the same river?

  38. Mystic Met’s Vicky Pope says:-

    “Thanks to our new £31,000,000 Supercomputer (soon to be upgraded for an extra £10,000,000) there is no doubt of the outcome.

    We confidently predict that there is a 30% probability of the result being 5.5 (+/- 0.5)M sq.km, a 30% probability of it being 4.5 (+/- 0.5) M sq.km and a 40% probability of it being 3.5 (+/- 0.5) M sq.km.

    There, we think that’s got it sorted.

    Hey, Anthony, you designed your poll all wrong! There isn’t a button to check for the right answer!”

    Signed, Vicky Pope (13¾)

  39. Almost exactly six months ago there was an earlier thread here about this very subject …

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/11/23/joe-bastardis-2011-arctic-sea-ice-prediction/

    Joe Bastardi went early in for 5.5 Mkm^2. For what it matters, I will go with him.

    It’s funny to see some of the climate trolls finally mustering up enough courage to take a stab at it now, six months later. In that thread we find R. Gates bloviating profusely and criticizing JB but failing to make a single prediction. Did I miss it?

    And I see in a comment above that someone says that Tamino Foster Grant finally climbed out on a limb with a prediction now, six months later. Way to go G-Man.

    Perhaps some of their groupies might also report on any daring predictions from Hansen, Mann, Serreze, Walt Meier, and Julienne Strove. I’m sure it would qualify as a taxpayer funded activity, so what’s stopping them? I mean, spend the money while you still can.

    P.S. did I mention yet that Joe Bastardi made a prediction six months ago?

  40. Who said there is goning to be a minimum this year – don’t you all know that the world is ending tomorrow?

  41. I lost interest in arctic sea-ice when I analysed the data last year. That annual signal that cropped up in 2007 onwards, it’s rigged, someone was twiddling the contrast or something simular.

    blue is pre 2007
    white is 2007 onwards.

    Why bother trying to guess which way they’ll twiddle the contrast next?

  42. My dog says 5.5+ so that’s how I voted. She’s a Labrador so should know, she’s good at finding shot birds.

    All this grant money going into guessing games. The ice cover will be what it will be and will lie between the max. and min. levels on your first graph. Not rocket science and everyone reading WUWT will say the same.

  43. It will be the same as it was in 1974. 7.4 million km2 is the best value I can find so far.

  44. Has Prince Charles voted yet? With his deadline for an ice free arctic fast approaching, I think we should be told.
    And can we have a run down on the 100 months to save the planet? How is that going?
    Are global temperatures and sea levels rising commensurate with the outgassing of the recent batch of trolls we seem to have acquired?

  45. 1. Wait until it declines to 10e6sqkm.
    2. Track the rate of decline until almost 8e6sqkm.
    3. Make a prediction of the minimum based upon the rate of decline from 1 to 2.
    4. Bask in the adoration of WWWT readers.

  46. I guessed 5.1 last year, which was nearer than most. I posted my guess at The Blackboard, which was the site (I think it was) that allowed people to post their estimates. I was amazed at how closely many of the bets tracked the bettor’s predilections (warmist vs. scorcher-scoffer). In particular, nearly all the prominent warmist predictions were below 5.0, some considerably below.

    This year I’m guessing 5.1 to 5.2, based on the “naive” forecasting technique that guesses that the next event will not be far from the preceding event.

    If anyone wants to “make it interesting,” they can bet real money on this year’s minimum ice extent (will it be greater or lesser than 2007’s?) below. (Current odds give the extent only a 34% chance of exceeding 2007–IOW, the odds are predicting a record low.):

    https://www.intrade.com/v4/markets/contract/?contractId=744206

  47. @Terra Incognita, May 19, 2011 at 9:32 pm

    In the interests of being accurate about Al Gore’s failed predictions, I was referring to his speech at a German museum in December 2008 (video no longer on Youtube per link in the following article), not his 2009 speech at Copenhagen, where he referenced Maslowski:

    http://directorblue.blogspot.com/2008/12/start-countdown-polar-icecaps-gone-in.html

    Hey, if come 2013, it’s still 5 years out, you and he can share the same failed prediction !!

    Free beer tomorrow.

  48. < 4.0, 3.1 to be exact.

    I hope the Arctic summer will not be like 2007, because that might wipe out the sea ice entirely in this stage.

  49. Terra Incognita says: May 19, 2011 at 11:51 pm

    JTF; I looked at the PDF. The linear extent of the icebreaker’s travel is irrelevant since the width of the ice breaker is miniscule. The diagram may give a different impression but that’s because the thickness of the lines have to be drawn much thicker than the actual width of the path cut by the icebreaker.

    Thanks, that’s really insightful, as I am sure that many readers were thinking that icebreakers are several kilometers wide…

    What do you think happens to the broken up ice when the wind is blowing away from the icepack?

    It has been well documented that “Much of the record breaking loss of ice in the Arctic ocean in recent years is down to the region’s swirling winds and is not a direct result of global warming, a new study reveals.” including in the Guardian:

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/mar/22/wind-sea-ice-loss-arctic

    This 2011 paper submitted to The Cryosphere L. H. Smedsrud, et al.;

    http://www.the-cryosphere-discuss.net/5/1311/2011/tcd-5-1311-2011-print.pdf

    used “geostrophic winds derived from reanalysis data to calculate the Fram Strait ice area export back to 1957, finding that the sea ice area export recently is about 25 % larger than during the 1960’s.”

    By the way, if there were no global warming heating up the oceans and atmosphere, those tracks would freeze over quickly.

    There has been an increase in measured Ocean Heat Content;

    however most of this increase occurred before “Argo deployments began in 2000 and by November 2007 the array is 100% complete.”;

    http://www.argo.ucsd.edu/

    and thus should be viewed with a high degree of skepticism.

    If CO2 were driving increased Ocean Heat Content, then why would heat content plateau while anthropogenic production of CO2 was increasing rapidly?

  50. About the ice breakers – Has anyone considered the effect of disturbing the halocline with the prop wash from those ships. The temperature at which sea water freezes is dependent on the saline content and the surface water with less salt tends to not mix with heaver, saltier water below. Unless you run an giant egg beater through there.

  51. Terra Incognita says:
    May 19, 2011 at 6:39 pm
    R. Gates:
    May 19, 2011 at 4:17 pm
    “Currently looking like 4.4 million sq. km. + or – 200K sq. km.

    I agree. I stated 5.0 m last year and it turned out to be a conservative estimate.

    Yes Virginia; I don’t know about Santa Clause, but there is an “Arctic Ice Cap death spiral”.
    ——-

    It will spiral down to an ice free summer sometime in the next few decades, probably by 2030, despite the expectations by some that somehow it is going to mount a recovery based on some combination of natural ocean cycles. The longer term trend in arctic sea ice is following the longer-term trend indicated in every GCM when factoring in the effects of a 40% rise in CO2 since the 1750’s.

  52. The results of this poll are interesting.

    Mostly they conform to the usual tendency of people to answer in the middle of such a range – see the peak at 5.0-5.1 million km2 and the drop-off to either side of that. This means that the answer to the poll was to an extent created by the ranges Mr Watts put on the poll beforehand.

    The next interesting feature is the skew towards the high values of sea-ice. This is unsurprising given the predominantly cynical viewpoints expressed in the comments section here. It’s worth noting that more than 1/3 of those who have voted [as of now] think that the September extent will be above 5.4 million km2. The sea-ice has been below that value every year since the record low of 2007, so this would be quite a turnaround.

    For what it’s worth I think there has to be a reasonable chance of a new record this year. Looking at the data from NSIDC ftp://sidads.colorado.edu/DATASETS/NOAA/G02135/Sep/N_09_area.txt one can see that there have been 7 years which have been lower than all previous years [starting from 1980]. That’s an average of about once every 4 years. It’s now been four years since the last record. I’d say it was about 50:50 that there’d be a new record, so accordingly I’ve voted for the less than 4.0 million km2 option.

  53. I think there is a 50/50 chance of either a heavy flow out throught the Fram straight like 2007, or the Beaufort gyre spinning the ice out to the Beaufort sea where it melts like last year.

    So I am going with 4.0 +/- 0.1

    and the closest I can vote is less than4.0

    Good luck to all

  54. Actually, I’ve since seen tamino’s forecast from last October, which is a fair bit more robust than my method, and does show that 2007 was something of a freak outlier. His forecast of 4.63 +/- 0.9 million km^2 looks pretty good and his trend line suggests that it will be next year when a new record will be a 50:50 chance.

  55. My computer model has just finished. It says, with +/-100%, certainty that it will be greater than 6 million. I have total confidence in it as it is written in Microsoft Visual Basic. I ran it on a Dual processor PC which had lots of memory. I also did a virus scan. I ran my model against the temp and ice records for the last 100 years. After a bit of tweaking and a few nudges it was one hundred percent accurate for every day since 1900 – 2009.

  56. I’m going with 5.1-5.2 based on thicker ice according to PIPS and slightly cooler SST in Barents and Greenland Sea.

    Since I’m guessing, error bars have no practical meaning.

  57. And I see in a comment above that someone says that Tamino Foster Grant finally climbed out on a limb with a prediction now, six months later. Way to go G-Man.

    No, you did not see that. You sound so sure about your knowledge, though!

    Tamino’s 4.63 prediction was part of a typically thoughtful post he made 25 October 2010, seven months ago.

  58. I believe that it will be around 5.2 – 5.3 million km^2. I have been noticing a rightward shift of crest and trough the last few years on the graph and I expect this trend to continue. Look at the last three years of sea Ice extent on the graph. All are lower than average in the month of January but by May all three years are above average. I have no idea of causation other than natural cycles that are yet undiscovered.

  59. On UNISYS the North Pacific and North Atlantic are both looking quite cold, especially the North West Pacific. With a clockwise N Pacific Gyre could this mean cold input to the Arctic from the Pacific? A swing in the opposite direction from the warm el Nino leftovers being swept up to the Arctic in the Pacific in the previous few years.

  60. Mike Sander says:
    May 20, 2011 at 12:34 pm
    This is what we are up against. Andrew Sullivan is a well respected blogger, but when he prints charts like this….how to defend against it?

    http://andrewsullivan.thedailybeast.com/2011/05/chart-of-the-day-7.html

    ————————————————
    It has to be a huge error surely ?? No one could expect to get away with perpetrating such a fraud …. well other than some people we know.

  61. It’s my understanding, following my own research of other’s work, that the arctic goes through a 70-ish year cycle of ice mass and that we are currently living in the minimum ice extent period. I see this recorded in history as times when the north-west passage is traversable without an icebreaker.

    I would love to see a historical plot of ice extent, say every 3rd or 4th year, going back as far as the data allows. Just so I could get an idea in my head of longer term trends at the top of the world… if such data exists of course.

  62. Terra Incognita says: May 19, 2011 at 11:51 pm

    Therefore the thinness of the icebreaker’s path, in contrast to the entire ice extent, would hardly have any effect.

    Interestingly the Russians have given us an opportunity to try to measure the effect:

    “Leaking nuclear icebreaker escorted out of ice covered Kara Sea 2011-05-06
    UPDATED: “Taimyr” was Friday evening escorted by the the nuclear powered icebreaker “Rossia” into a bay on the Vaigach island. – Ongoing leakages of cooling water from the reactor can evolve into a serious accident with potential for radioactive leakages, says nuclear physicist Nils Bøhmer in Bellona.

    The nuclear powered icebreaker was earlier this week escorting vessels on the Yenisei river north of the port-town of Dudinka when increased levels of radiation were detected in the air ventilation system of the reactor. The icebreaker aborted its mission and started Thursday to sail back towards the homeport in Murmansk on Russia’s Kola Peninsula.”

    http://www.barentsobserver.com/leaking-nuclear-icebreaker-escorted-out-of-ice-covered-kara-sea.4917481-116320.html

    So ice breaking on the Kara Sea has been disrupted since May 6th. If you look at the Kara Sea Ice Area chart;

    http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/recent365.anom.region.7.html

    it seems that a strong decline began in mid-April and continued until early May, when Sea Ice Area stabilized. In the last few days it seems to be staging a small comeback…

    Terra Incognita, do you think the disruption of ice breaking activities on the Kara Sea might have a measurable effect on Sea Ice Area?

  63. Just The Facts says:
    May 20, 2011 at 7:44 pm

    “Terra Incognita, do you think the disruption of ice breaking activities on the Kara Sea might have a measurable effect on Sea Ice Area?”

    [snip]

  64. Smokey says:
    May 20, 2011; 7:49 pm
    Terra Incognita,

    I would like pay to see you call Joe Bastardi a ‘bloviator’ to his face.

    [snip]

  65. To be clear for those who are forecasting the minimum, as the situation in the Kara returns to normal, “the lack of “Taimyr” in operation will likely have no implications for this season’s sailing along the Northern Sea Route. Rosatomflot has one sister-vessel similar to “Taimyr” – the “Vaigach” with same capabilities to break ice in shallow waters. Also more powerful icebreakers, like “Rossia”, “Yamal”, “50 years of Victory”, and “Sovyetsky Souz” will assure enough ice-breaker capacity for the season.”

    http://www.barentsobserver.com/radioactive-incident-icebreaker-back-in-port.4919238-116320.html

  66. Terra Incognita says:

    “Gates; we’re in the same ballpark as far as AGW is concerned but I believe, on intuition mostly…”

    LOL! Two true believers, who have zero empirical evidence – but plenty of intuition-based belief.

    The scientific method has made it possible for us to go to medical doctors now to treat diseases, instead of witch doctors. These two guys have no evidence, and no need for the scientific method, so they believe in their juju.☺

  67. Just The Facts says:
    May 20, 2011 at 8:08 pm

    There’s an icebreaker called Yamal ?? No way ??

    Right, even though I’m not a conspiracy theorist, I think I’m going to demand a GIA – global icebreaker adjustment. That acronym’s not taken is it ??

  68. Terra Incognita says:

    “How much?”

    You’ve called my bluff. I wouldn’t want to be liable for people seeing you get squashed like a bug.☺

    But Joe is by all accounts a really nice guy. He would probably respond to being called a bloviator like Humphrey Bogart did in Casa Blanca, when Peter Lorre whined in his nasal accent:

    “You despise me, don’t you, Rick?”

    “If I thought about you, Ugati, I probably would.”

  69. Terra,

    If it’s not too much trouble, please define “fact-based intuition”.

    See, I worship the scientific method. It keeps the witch doctors at bay.

  70. Terra Incognita says: May 20, 2011 at 8:05 pm

    But what has been causing the ice cap to thin and shrink (approximately 70%+ by volume) throughout the past 3 decades?

    If you look at all of the minimums in Sea Ice Area for the last 3 decades;

    you’ll note how the average minimum seems to have decreased from around 5 million sq km in the 80s to around 3 million sq km in the last few years. That works out to around a 40% decrease. Is your “approximately 70%” a guess or can you provide a factual basis for it?

    In terms of the source of the 40% decline, I’d say natural variations in polar vorticity, the Arctic Oscillation, wind speed and direction, air temps and water temps, as well as anthropogenic forces including icebreakers, shipping, fisherman, cruise liners, and their associated ice breaking, soot, waste water discharges, heat discharges, churning/turbulence, etc. However, if you are looking for a “Global Warming Signature” currently Lower Troposphere Temperatures are only slightly above average;
    ftp://ftp.ssmi.com/msu/graphics/tlt/plots/rss_ts_channel_tlt_global_land_and_sea_v03_3.png

    so most of this year’s negative .953 million sq. mm Arctic Sea Ice Area Anomaly;

    is likely due to something other than CO2.

  71. Terra Incognita says:
    May 20, 2011 at 8:26 pm

    Remember the predictions, on this site, made just a couple years ago, that we were going to return to 1979 ice extent levels and recuperate ice thickness in a few years(!)?
    ========================================================

    lol, Terra, how far do you go back here? I’m looking at the data, and it says that since 2007, its doing quite well. I’ll put the minimum months on a linear trend if you’d like to see. Seeing the recent temp trends, it’s fine, although I posit wind and sea currents have more to do with ice extent than temps do n a year to year basis.

    Honestly, I find this exercise about how big or how little the ice will be a bit tedious in that I don’t think it matters. And, yeh, you’re probably underestimating the amount of megalomaniacs [here]……… but then isn’t that the nature of us all that comment here? Knowing that there are 100’s of more readers than commentators…….

  72. Terra Incognita,

    You have the scientific method exactly backward. Gates made the conjecture that CO2 is causing the Arctic ice to melt. Therefore, skeptics have nothing to prove. Gates made the conjecture, now it is up to him to defend it – with verifiable evidence.

    The onus is on the believers in CO2=CAGW to convincingly show, with verifiable, testable, and measurable evidence, that CO2 is the culprit. They have failed.

    If you reject the scientific method, it’s back to the witch doctors. Is that what you want?

  73. Smokey says:
    May 20, 2011 at 9:35 pm
    Terra Incognita,

    Is that what you want?
    ———————————
    What Terra Incognita wants (and I suspect desperately, despite him protesting that less Arctic ice is a disaster) is less Arctic ice.

    I have a Ph.D but not in psychiatry, so can’t help.

    Just like fake socialism, wanting to save poor people, but with a requirement for creating more of them to save.

  74. James Sexton says: May 20, 2011 at 9:27 pm

    Honestly, I find this exercise about how big or how little the ice will be a bit tedious in that I don’t think it matters.

    I tend to agree, with so many variables influencing Arctic Sea Ice, its value as an effective thermometer of Earth is highly questionable.

    Antarctic sea ice might be somewhat better, as there are less anthropogenic influences and the Southern Hemisphere has smaller and less variable minimums;

    but polar vorticity, the Antarctic Oscillation (AAO) (you can see some background on the AAO on the WUWT Atmospheric Oscillations page:
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/reference-pages/atmospheric-oscillation/ ), ocean currents and circulation, cloud cover, etc. will still impact accuracy.

    Southern Hemisphere Sea Ice Area is currently average, but it has seen several record highs in the last few years:

    The most effective Sea Ice based Earth Thermometer is likely Global Sea Ice Area, as it takes into account both sides of the coin:

  75. Smokey says:
    May 20, 2011 at 9:35 pm

    The onus is on the believers in CO2=CAGW to convincingly show, with verifiable, testable, and measurable evidence, that CO2 is the culprit. They have failed.
    ==========================================

    Naw Smoke, it just turns out that ice destroying atmospheric CO2 peaked in 2007.

  76. Just The Facts says:
    May 20, 2011 at 10:40 pm

    James Sexton says: May 20, 2011 at 9:27 pm

    Honestly, I find this exercise about how big or how little the ice will be a bit tedious in that I don’t think it matters.

    I tend to agree, with so many variables influencing Arctic Sea Ice, its value as an effective thermometer of Earth is highly questionable.
    =====================================================

    Right, plus, the albedo effect of the arctic is entirely over weighted. It’s silly to think there’s some trigger that’s going to be pulled if and when the arctic cap melts, again.

    Its funny, similar to what philincalifornia (May 20, 2011 at 9:49 pm) about Terra secretly wanting the ice to melt, I openly want it to melt, so the world can get over this obsession. Maybe then the people worried about it can apply their resources to something useful.

  77. steven mosher,

    Maybe it’s late and that’s the reason I can’t follow what you’re trying to say. Let me point out again that Gates has put forth his hypothesis that CO2 is the cause of Arctic ice decline. It is up to him [and you too, if you believe the same thing], to provide empirical evidence supporting that hypothesis. Otherwise, his hypothesis becomes a conjecture; an opinion.

    Evidence is a tough thing to get around, that’s why the warmist crowd doesn’t like it, or the scientific method it’s based upon. Either you have real world evidence, or you’re operating on an evidence-free belief system.

    Let’s see the evidence.

  78. Just The Facts says:
    May 20, 2011 at 8:55 pm
    Terra Incognita says: May 20, 2011 at 8:05 pm

    But what has been causing the ice cap to thin and shrink (approximately 70%+ by volume) throughout the past 3 decades?

    [snip]

  79. Terra Incognita says: May 20, 2011 at 8:51 pm

    Everyone believes that they have looked at all or most the “facts”

    No, I’ve looked at a tremendous number of facts, but I know that I am privy to a tiny fraction of the potential universe of available facts. It seems as though you delude yourself and then assume that everyone else does as well.

    Only problem is, and I’ve been observing this site for a few years, that the majority of the people here are relying on their version of “fact based intuition”.

    I’ve been around here for a lot longer than you, and I’ve found the people on this site are some of the most reasoned, rational and fact based individuals I’ve come across.

    I’m skeptical ☺ of their facts but nobody here, including me, pretends to have done a rigorous scientific analysis

    You can yap about rigor all you want, but it doesn’t change the fact that you haven’t been able to refute anything I’ve written…

  80. Smokey says:
    May 20, 2011 at 11:37 pm

    steven mosher,

    Maybe it’s late and that’s the reason I can’t follow what you’re trying to say. Let me point out again that Gates has put forth a hypothesis that CO2 is the cause of Arctic ice decline.
    ===============================

    Yep, Smokey, its late for you. Mosh is babbling on the other thread.

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/05/20/indirect-solar-forcing-of-climate-by-galactic-cosmic-rays-an-observational-estimate/#comment-664895

  81. As the late, great John Daly has documented, the same natural Arctic sea ice cycle has occurred in the past, most recently in the early 1800’s. The curent natural cycle is nothing unusual.

    Arctic ice is currently declining. So what? There is zero evidence that it is anything other than natural climate variability.

    The true believers in catastrophic AGW will never be convinced otherwise, even if the planet descends into the next great Ice Age. Like Leon Festinger’s Seekers, the cognitive dissonace-afflicted true believers will still remain convinced, against all evidence, that runaway global warming is right around the corner.

  82. Terra Incognita says: May 20, 2011 at 11:37 pm

    Actually, JTF, you hit it right on the nail. Now if you would take into account the fact that I said “thin” as well as shrink. Then I mentioned 70% as the “volume”.

    The only thing you missed, JTF was the statistics for thinning. But hey, you got the shrink statistics right so I’m sure you can figure out the approximate 40% worth of thinning. That would come out to 64%. I have a feeling the actual figures are a tad more but the difference between 64% and 70% is . . .

    This is incoherent gibberish. Go find me a worthy adversary…

  83. James Sexton says:
    May 20, 2011; 10:56 pm

    “Naw Smoke, it just turns out that ice destroying atmospheric CO2 peaked in 2007.”

    [snip]

  84. Just The Facts says:

    “This is incoherent gibberish. Go find me a worthy adversary…”

    Seconded.

  85. Suareg said: I would expect a moderate ice melt, with a minimum extent of 5.4 sq. kms. We have had a nice La Nina this winter. Cold ENSO events are usually followed by some recovery in extent, while El Nino years often produce extra ice melt (like in 2005, 2007 or 2010).

    Well, I’ve seen evidence from Tisdale that Arctic ice lags ENSO by a couple of years, and therefore I think this year’s minimum will be lower than last, in fact second lowest in the modern record. So I went for 4.6-4.8 (which someone already commented must be a typo for 4.6-4.7). I did this before reading this thread and noticing several comments about Tamino’s 4.63. That’s odd – I don’t usually agree with Tamino!

    The recovery which many are looking for will come in 2012.

    Like many, I’d like to see an end to anthropogenic ice-breaking…

    Rich.

  86. Smokey:

    “Its funny, similar to what philincalifornia (May 20, 2011 at 9:49 pm) about Terra secretly wanting the ice to melt, I openly want it to melt, so the world can get over this obsession. Maybe then the people worried about it can apply their resources to something useful.”

    [snip]

  87. Couple of interesting observations :

    The IPCC model projections for Arctic Sea Ice extent follow the long-term (30 year) average trend, which projects a target 5.2 million km^2 extent by 2011 and ice-free Arctic conditions by around 2070.

    The WUWT poll here returned 439 entries by the time I entered by vote, and a simple calculation of the results reveals that the average projection of WUWT voters for minimum sea ice extent 2011 is at this point 5.16 million km^2.

    For those here who ever posted objections against the IPCC, it seems that your estimate on average is less than 1 % away from what your opinion suggests.

    Of course, in the real world, where real people bet real money, the odds of 2011 minimum sea ice extent being below 2007 (4.3 million km^2) are more than 65% :

    https://www.intrade.com/v4/markets/contract/?contractId=744206

    Seems to me that both the IPCC and WUWT readers are seriously out of touch with reality.

  88. BA [May 20, 2011 at 9:53 am] says:

    “And I see in a comment above that someone says that Tamino Foster Grant finally climbed out on a limb with a prediction now, six months later. Way to go G-Man.”

    “No, you did not see that. You sound so sure about your knowledge, though!”

    Oh, I stand corrected then. I see the reference now:

    “Also, Tamino stated his method and estimate last year for this year’s minimum @ 4.63 million km^2. Someone should place a vote for him. ;-)”

    I was trying to deduce from the above comments what was going on and missed that statement, since there isn’t a chance of me clicking on his website these days. Last time I did drop in was circa the epic VS/Bart thread but lost interest once it became clear that he was too much of a wuss to take a random walk over to Bart’s and engage first hand. He instead chose to allow his groupies to act as proxies. In my ‘hood we got a name for that kind of guy, but it probably isn’t allowed here.

    “Tamino’s 4.63 prediction was part of a typically thoughtful post he made 25 October 2010, seven months ago.”

    You didn’t really say that out loud did you? Without a sarc? Are you a she? Just askin.

  89. Well let’s see if Terra Incognita can own up to his error, shall we? First I said this …

    “It’s funny to see some of the climate trolls finally mustering up enough courage to take a stab at it now, six months later. In that thread we find R. Gates bloviating profusely and criticizing JB but failing to make a single prediction. Did I miss it?”

    Then Terra Incognita said this …

    “BLADE, YOU MOST CERTAINLY DID MISS IT:”

    R. Gates:
    May 19, 2011 at 4:17 pm
    “Currently looking like 4.4 million sq. km. + or – 200K sq. km.

    Can you spot your mistake. Here is a hint:

    In that thread we find R. Gates bloviating profusely and criticizing JB but failing to make a single prediction.”

    Ok, I’ll help, unless R. Gates has a time machine she could not have made a prediction In that thread 6 months ago, and, have it dated May 19, 2011 at 4:17 pm. Could she?

  90. Anthony, what do you think this year’s minimum extent will be? Will we see another recovery like the last 3 years?

    I go for 4.2…

  91. Terra Incognita says:
    May 21, 2011 at 12:03 am

    James Sexton says:
    May 20, 2011; 10:56 pm

    “Naw Smoke, it just turns out that ice destroying atmospheric CO2 peaked in 2007.”

    Most of today’s melting is the result of several decades worth of heat accumulation in the ocean. It takes a while for water to heat up compared to air due to its being a 1,000 times denser.

    As for CO2 “peaking”, what exactly do you mean? It is obvious that CO2 is still increasing by about 2 ppm per year. Are you claiming that CO2 increase has somehow stopped?
    =========================================
    Terra, sorry, I don’t comment here as much as I used to, so you may not be familiar with my humor.

    This thread is about our doomed arctic cap…….supposedly caused by increased atmospheric CO2. If you’d clicked on the link I provided, you see that it seems to be recovering quit nicely from a low in 2007. Yes, I know it is a very short time frame, but there it is. Claiming recent melt is as ridiculous as claiming recent warming,

    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:2001/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:2001/trend

    If CO2 caused increase temps and ice melt, its falling down on its jobs. I think we need to fire CO2 as a bogeyman and go back to Jason and Freddie….. now those guys are scary!

    BTW,
    Smokey: James

    “Its funny, similar to what philincalifornia (May 20, 2011 at 9:49 pm) about Terra secretly wanting the ice to melt, I openly want it to melt, so the world can get over this obsession. Maybe then the people worried about it can apply their resources to something useful.”

    I said that not Smokey. There was a recent study done (story here on WUWT) about even if the ice did melt, it is very likely it would quickly return. I’d provide the link but I’m real busy right now. All humor aside, I seriously believe alarmist have wasted the resources and energies of this world for over 30 years. Can you imagine what this world could have accomplished had it not been for this issue? Think of all the money that was diverted from real science. Think of the asinine policies enacted that have thwarted and inhibited progress. They are the reason for the extended economic difficulties in the U.S. and around the world.

    Peace

  92. Terra Incogitato says:

    “The real b!tch is the radically changed weather dynamics of an open Arctic ocean. It’s already occurring.”

    There is no difference in current temperatures, trends, or rates of change from what has happened repeatedly throughout the Holocene. It is simply regional climate variability.

    As a matter of fact, today’s climate is of the “Goldilocks” variety. Past changes – prior to the industrial revolution – have often been much more abrupt and devastating. Thus the climate null hypothesis remains un-falsified, and the alternative CO2=CAGW hypothesis conjecture fails because it has no evidence to support it. None.

    Finally, Terra objects to “alarmist.” It is not a derogatory term, it is accurate: some people are sounding the alarm over CO2 [or “carbon” if you prefer – an even more ridiculous assertion]. There is nothing wrong with labeling them as alarmists, because that is exactly what they are doing: deliberately alarming the populace.

    If there was any physical evidence supporting their view, they might have an excuse. But with no supporting evidence, what they are doing is tantamount to falsely shouting “Fire!” in a crowded theater. They are climate alarmists, therefore it is an accurate label, no?

    OTOH, denigrating honest scientific skeptics as “denialists,” “deniers,” “contrarians,” etc., is simply a fallback position for folks who have no empirical, testable, measurable evidence to support their belief that CO2 is driving the climate toward catastrophe.

    If it weren’t for their name-calling they would have little to say, because the complete lack of testable evidence means their belief system is faith-based, not science-based. So they call skeptics vile names that are deliberately associated with the Holocaust, because their hypothesis has failed the scientific method’s requirement of testability.

  93. Plumped for greater than 6.0m, on the basis that there is much more multi-year ice now, plus we shall probably have another cold winter in the north.

    .

  94. Smokey says:
    May 21, 2011 at 12:01 am

    “As the late, great John Daly has documented, the same natural Arctic sea ice cycle has occurred in the past, most recently in the early 1800′s. The curent natural cycle is nothing unusual.”

    When will people stop using John Daly’s outdated arguments? For instance, in that same argument you reference, she stated:

    “The total area of the Arctic Ocean is about 14 million sq. km. The above graph shows a significant shrinkage of ice extent during 1979 at the end of the Arctic cold period, amounting to almost 1 million sq. km., or 7% of the total. Since 1979, the ice area has largely stabilised, reaching a brief minimum around 1995, and increasing again since then.”

    His argument largely made sense at the time, when his most recent data for sea ice extent extended as far as the year 2000, but now we have 10 more years of data. That “brief minimum” in 1995 was a September extent of 6.13 million km2. The September extent last year? 4.90 million km2. In 2007 it was 4.30 million km2. September 1995, his minimum value, is now barely hanging on to a spot in the top 10 lowest September extents.

    Furthermore, explain “same natural cycle” to me. I get that an anecdotal account (many, in fact) tells me that a whole lot of ice was melting in the Arctic back in the 1800s. Where’s the evidence that it started out at the same amount it did in the 1970s? If it was the “same natural cycle” as you imply, then it should follow that the ice extent in 1800 was approximately the same as it was in the 1970s. If not, then your argument is on just as shaky ground as you seem to think the counterarguments of others are.

    The Northern Hemisphere was in the midst of recovery from the Little Ice Age during the 1800s, a period which was much colder than it is today…or even than it was 50 years ago. Perhaps that was the reason people were astounded by the melt in ice: because there was so much more of it then? Or do you deny the LIA occurred or that we are no longer in it? If you do not deny it, then do you seriously think that the amount of sea ice and glacial ice during the LIA was roughly equivalent to the amount of glacial and sea ice in the 1970s? That’s what your argument of “same natural cycles” would seem to imply.

    So which is it? Is emergence from the centuries-long LIA in the 1800s the “same natural cycle” as the one we’re experiencing now, or is it something different? Should we perhaps call the two-decade span from the 1960s to 1970s the “Even Littler Ice Age”?

  95. >>Roger
    >>Has Prince Charles voted yet? With his deadline for an ice free
    >>arctic fast approaching, I think we should be told.

    Shhh, don’t tell anyone, but Charlie-boy uses the nome-de-plume of ‘Wilson’, in the bar graphs above. He is known as Green Willie to his courtiers, but I am sure that a dose of penecillin will clear it up.

    .

    .

  96. That should read “For instance, in that same argument you reference, he stated:” My apologies.

  97. Travis,

    Natural climate variability is the null hypothesis, against which any alternative hypothesis [such as CO2=ice free Arctic] must be tested. Since there is no measurable difference between the current climate and past climate extremes, there should not be an ad hoc presumption that what we currently observe is unusual. It is not. The Arctic has been ice free before.

    Scientific skepticism is not just a good idea, it is a requirement of the scientific method. The assumption that CO2 is the cause of the current Arctic ice decline has no supporting empirical evidence, and the null hypothesis remains un-falsified. Why would you think the current variability is anything other than the natural ebb and flow of the Arctic climate cycle?

  98. Hi
    I voted less than 4.5
    Oh and BTW thanks for providing a means for determining the number of sock puppets who post on this site :)

  99. evidence, that runaway global warming is right around the corner.

    Just The Facts says:
    May 21, 2011; 2:02 am
    Terra Incognita says: May 20, 2011 at 11:37 pm

    “The only thing you missed, JTF was the statistics for thinning. But hey, you got the shrink statistics right so I’m sure you can figure out the approximate 40% worth of thinning. That would come out to 64%. I have a feeling the actual figures are a tad more but the difference between 64% and 70% is . . .

    JTF responds:

    “This is incoherent gibberish. Go find me a worthy adversary…”

    Villabolo responds: [snip]

  100. Smokey says:
    May 21, 2011; 8:50 am
    Terra Incogitato says:

    “The real b!tch is the radically changed weather dynamics of an open Arctic ocean. It’s already occurring.”

    Smoke responds:

    “. . . Past changes – prior to the industrial revolution – have often been much more abrupt and devastating. . . .”

    [snip]

  101. Terra Incogitato,

    Stop it, you’re scaring yourself. Malthusian Luddites are motivated by fear. But despite their constant alarming conjectures, we’re still here and doing better than ever. That is an empirical observation, and it trumps your baseless CAGW fantasies.

    Also, I deliberately kept things impersonal by commenting: “If it weren’t for their name-calling they would have little to say…” etc. If you want to put yourself in the ranks of their and they, that’s your choice.

    Now, let’s deconstruct your numbered list…

    #1 & #2 are covered in my comment above. For #3, you state that I’m wrong about the “abrupt” part. Go argue with R.B. Alley, it’s his description. And #4 is simply baseless, wild-eyed conjecture, as are pretty much all your posts in this thread – and you’ve posted a lot, arguing with a lot of reasonable folks.

    Really, you’re just scaring yourself with the alarming Algore ghost stories. Nothing catastrophic, or even unusual is happening. The world is going on like it always has, disregarding the puny human effects.

  102. RE: Smokey May 21, 2011 at 2:11 pm

    In your enthusiasm for giving me your lecture on natural variability being the null hypothesis, you missed my point entirely. I completely agree that natural variability must be the null hypothesis. MY argument was that the natural cycles John Daly mentioned are not sufficient to explain the current changes, and that different factors are at work than there were in the 1800s. Never did I claim in my argument that natural cycles were NOT the cause of the recent changes in sea ice. I never advocated for CAGW as the cause of any death spiral. I’m simply saying that we need to recognize that even if they are still natural, there are different forces at work now than there were when John Daly wrote his piece.

  103. Smokey says:
    May 21, 2011 at 5:46 pm

    “Also, I deliberately kept things impersonal by commenting: “If it weren’t for their name-calling they would have little to say…” etc. If you want to put yourself in the ranks of their and they, that’s your choice.”

    [snip]

  104. Terra Incognita says: May 21, 2011 at 4:09 pm

    evidence, that runaway global warming is right around the corner.

    I await it with bated breath…

    Is that your way of avoiding the fact that you totally forgot about the thinning when you “corrected” me for stating there was a 70% reduction in volume?

    No, it is my way of telling you that I do not consider you a worthy adversary…

    In terms of sea ice volume, there is currently no effective measure of it, thus none of the key Sea Ice Data sources offer it, you can check for yourself:

    The Cryosphere Today – Arctic Climate Research at the University of Illinois:

    http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/

    http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/

    http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/

    National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC):

    http://nsidc.org/

    http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/

    http://nsidc.org/searchlight/

    University of Bremenpart

    http://www.iup.uni-bremen.de/eng/

    http://www.iup.uni-bremen.de/iuppage/psa/2001/amsrop.html

    http://www.iup.uni-bremen.de:8084/

    International Arctic Research Center/Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency (IARC-JAXA)

    http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/en/

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

    Danish Meteorological Institute (DMI)

    http://ocean.dmi.dk/english/index.php

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

    http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/antarctic_melting.html

    More sources can be found on the WUWT Sea Ice Page:

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/reference-pages/sea-ice-page/

    When you reference volume I assume you mean the spurious PIOMAS Arctic Sea Ice Volume model and chart by Jinlun Zhang:

    http://psc.apl.washington.edu/ArcticSeaiceVolume/IceVolume.php

    If you look here:

    http://psc.apl.washington.edu/zhang/Global_seaice/model.html

    you can see how Dr. Zhang voodooed up his garbage model.

    The page states that, “Satellite sea ice concentration data are assimilated in GIOMAS using the Lindsay and Zhang (2005) assimilation procedure. The procedure is based on “nudging” the model estimate of ice concentration toward the observed concentration in a manner that emphasizes the ice extent and minimizes the effect of observational errors in the interior of the ice pack.”

    According to this paper:

    http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/full/10.1175/JTECH1871.1

    “Because of the errors in the summer Gice dataset ice concentration in the interior of the pack (as well as errors in summer ice concentration based on passive microwave observations), assimilation of ice concentration is accomplished in a method that emphasizes the extent over the concentration. The observations are weighted heavily only when there is a large discrepancy between the model and the observed concentration. Each day the model estimate Cmod is nudged to a revised estimate Ĉmod with the relationship.”

    So Zhang used an erroneous data set, weighted heavily when observations didn’t fit the model and then “nudged” its output to the results that he wanted. This is not rigorous science, it is a joke.

    Zhang has a history of contorting himself to help paint over the gaps in the Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming Narrative.

    In the NASA article/press release;

    http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/antarctic_melting_prt.htm

    it states that “Jinlun Zhang, an oceanographer at the University of Washington, has pieced together a complex computer model that helps explain why Antarctic sea ice is expanding even with signs that ocean and air temperatures are on the rise.”

    and here is one of the propaganda pieces that he’s produced:
    “Zhang, J., R.W. Lindsay , M. Steele, and A. Schweiger, What drove the dramatic retreat of Arctic sea ice during summer 2007? Geophys. Res. Lett., 35, L11505, doi:10.1029/2008GL034005, 2008.”

    http://psc.apl.washington.edu/lindsay/pdf_files/Zhang%20etal%20GRL2008%20-%20ice%20retreat%20in%202007.pdf

    In it Zhang states that, “Arctic sea ice in 2007 was preconditioned to radical changes” and this contributed to “The dramatic decline”, this is not objective science, rather it’s alarmist rhetoric.

    Zhang also co-wrote a paper with Mark “Death Spiral” Serreze and Keith “the lack of warming … is a travesty” Trenberth;
    Serreze, M. C., A. P. Barrett, A. G. Slater, M. Steele, J. Zhang, and K. E. Trenberth, The large-scale energy budget of the Arctic, J. Geophys Res., 112, D11122, doi: 10.1029/2006JD008230, 2007.”

    and was already looking for an Arctic Sea Ice tipping points in 2005:
    “Lindsay, R. W. and J. Zhang, The thinning of arctic sea ice, 1988–2003: have we passed a tipping point? J. Climate, 18, 4879–4894, 2005.”

    Can you provide a link to the reliable data source to support your statement that, “ice cap to thin and shrink (approximately 70%+ by volume) throughout the past 3 decades” or do you accept that this erroneous statement has been refuted?

  105. Terra,

    Oh, but I do admit it when I make a misteak, always, as both of my regular readers will attest. Everyone makes a mistake on occasion; I admit it – why don’t you? You cannot provide a shred of evidence supporting your CAGW belief system – yet you insist that climate catastrophe is right around the corner. Terra, you’re just diverting the subject away from your evidence-free conjectures.

  106. Travis,

    Please provide solid, verifiable, teastable empirical evidence of your conjecture. That’s all I ask. But so far, nada… Because there is no evidence!

  107. Just The Facts says:
    May 21, 2011; 7:49 pm
    Terra Incognita says: May 21, 2011 at 4:09 pm

    “evidence, that runaway global warming is right around the corner.

    [snip]

  108. Terra Incognita says: May 21, 2011 at 8:52 pm

    This is the second time that someone on this board has imagined things that I never said. This time there’s even a quotation that does not appear in my May 21, 2011 at 4:09 pm post; or any other post for that fact.

    Are you paranoid, delusional, a combination thereof? In your comment “Terra Incognita says: May 21, 2011 at 4:09 pm” you wrote: “evidence, that runaway global warming is right around the corner.” to me. I do not care if you did not originate the words, you communicated them to me in a comment and I responded. You are grasping at straws…

    This obviously indicates that you “adversaries”, are as unworthy of debate as you’ve claimed I am. If you make up stuff and quotations out of thin air, how likely are you to be paying attention to what I’m actually saying?

    You are a perfect example of why the Warmists are losing this argument. You can’t piece together a coherent sentence, much less hold a reasoned debate. How do you expect to convince others of your belief system if you aren’t sure why you believe it?

  109. Just The Facts:

    In terms of sea ice volume, there is currently no effective measure of it, thus none of the key Sea Ice Data sources offer it, you can check for yourself:”

    [snip]

  110. Smokey says:
    May 21, 2011 at 8:50 pm

    Please provide solid, verifiable, teastable empirical evidence of your conjecture. That’s all I ask. But so far, nada… Because there is no evidence!

    What conjecture? I make no claim aside from pointing out that simply because two episodes have the same theme doesn’t mean they have the same cause. I don’t think that the assertion that whatever caused sea ice to melt at the end of the LIA is a different mechanism than what is causing sea ice retreat today is a particularly radical concept.

    Besides that, there’s plenty of empirical evidence showing sea ice extent was higher in the 1800s than it was in the 1970s in the form of naval records, particularly from the British Royal Navy. There are several books (Arctic Labyrinth is one that comes to mind) that provide excerpts of ships logs and personal journals of sailors in the Royal Navy and for the Hudson Bay Company which give the position and thickness of sea ice at various times of year.

    As far as recent cycles go, I originally said that the same natural cycles John Daly cited were not likely the same factors that were causing the melt today. I pointed out that Daly asserted that 1995 was the bottom of a natural cycle and that sea ice extent was on the upswing from that point onward. My thought was that if Daly was correct, then the most recent decline in sea ice must have another cause…and yes, I deliberately left the door open for that to be another natural cycle. I am willing, however, to consider other options, so here are some of the options that come readily to mind:

    1) John Daly was correct and I am correct, and there is a different mechanism at work then the one John Daly was referencing, be it natural or otherwise (again, I make no claim about that part)

    2) John Daly was grossly wrong about 1995 being the minimum year in the cycle, and thus I am also incorrect in my supposition.

    3) You are just looking to pick a fight with someone you perceive as a CAGW alarmist, yet who has deliberately stated that he is trying to assume natural causes.

    Note that none of these options are mutually exclusive. Now I’ve offered an argument, a place to find some evidence, and a chain of logic. You’ve provided a wholly unneeded lecture on null hypotheses and a supposed “gotcha” moment. Ball’s back in your court.

  111. Just The Facts says:
    May 21, 2011 at 7:49 pm
    Terra Incognita says: May 21, 2011 at 4:09 pm

    evidence, that runaway global warming is right around the corner.

    It seems that both of us made a mistake. Mine was inadvertantly snipped that sentence from the last sentence of Smokey’s post (May 21, 12:01 am.) right above the post I was cutting and pasting. For that I apologize.

    However, you should have realized by the sentence structure, that it was an amputated statement that did not belong there. If I were the one to have seen that partial sentence, I would have picked up on it right away and asked for clarification.

    All you had to do was say something like; “I don’t understand what you mean. You stated no evidence. Did you by any chance leave something out?”

    As for the claim that “warmists” (when will you start calling us hotties?) are losing this argument, my experience has shown that most skeptics don’t even understand the argument.

    I have given more detailed arguments before only to get the same results. Basic laws of physics are ignored; pseudo facts are created; issues are skirted; pot calling kettle black accusations are thrown around; and there is simply no comprehension or grasp of the issues.

    REPLY: Ah Trollobolo aka Villabolo aka “mecago” aka “enelcuno delatuya” aka “gaya hap” from Van Nuys/North Hollywood is back. Proud of your pathetic dishonesty enough to post it at CP as a trophy comment I see. Such lack of scruples from the warmists flouting such dishonesty, you must be so proud. OK, we’ve upped the security just for you. Your IP address trick will no longer work to get around being banned. – Anthony

  112. Tamino’s is the only sensible method of prediction. Look at the trend, and assume it continues. As someone once said, “the race does not always go to the swift, nor the fight to the strong, but that sure is the way to bet”.

  113. From your graph, it looks like one standard deviation is about 1/4 of 1.5Mkm2, or 0.375Mkm2.

    Since most of the poll bin widths are 0.1Mkm2, or about 1/4 of a s.d., I’ll take the low tail of 4.5Mkm2 or less.

    So, should losers sign their post-September posts with the size of their error compared to their range? E.g., with a 5.0 observation someone whose bid is 5.4 to 5.5 would “I overestimated the ice by 5 times my range.” I’ll sign mine with “I underestimated sea ice by 1.33 standard deviations.”

  114. Terra Incoherent,

    After about twenty posts here arguing with everyone without saying anything new, I’m still waiting for evidence, per the scientific method [testable, empirical, measurable], showing that this Arctic cycle is any different from past cycles.

    Instead of providing evidence, or admitting you can’t, you always try to re-frame the argument by making completely false comparisons, such as: “The majority of changes, depending on which geologic period you’re referring to, have occured in the time span of tens of thousands; thousands; and rarely hundreds of years. Our climate change has been occuring within decades. The more abrupt an event is, the less able we are to adapt to it.” Even Phil Jones states that the current rise is the same as previous temperature rises. Go argue with him, it’s his data. If you want a longer time frame, see here. [And as tonyb noted recently, this year’s temperature is exactly the same as it was in 1660, 8.84°C, IIRC.]

    Finally, the fact that the null hypothesis falsifies your belief in an alternative hypothesis makes further discussion pointless. Your unsupportable belief that “this time it’s different” is not worth arguing about. The null hypothesis is a function of the scientific method [which is why Trenberth is so anxious to change its definition]; it falsifies the CAGW conjecture. The same mindset is behind Post-Normal Science, which is just more pseudo-science mumbo-jumbo.

    If you cannot provide empirical evidence within the framework of the scientific method to back up your belief that the current decline in Arctic ice is caused by human activity rather than by natural variability [the null hypothesis], then make your pseudo-science arguments with someone else. If you want to debate with me, stick to the scientific method.

  115. Terra Incognita says: May 21, 2011 at 11:10 pm (Edit)

    As you wish. Keep saying that until the Arctic ice cap turns to ice cubes.

    Is this because of the icebreakers?…

    By the way, anyone who bandies about that old “Misquotation of Trenberth’s Travesty”, and does it by snipping 4 words in mid sentence, is not a serious opponent.

    Yes, “at the moment and” are really the substantive parts of that email…

    I’m not going to bother with your Gish Gallop of so called “empirical evidence”. Your empirical evidence consists of quoting other skeptics.

    I’ve cited dozens of original data sources in this thread, you haven’t cited any.

    But I will give you a link to an article exposing the skeptic falsehood of the Trenberth “warming” misquotation.

    It is not misquoted, he wrote the words, you can try to spin them however you want, but the quote is what it is.

    And please don’t tell me that I’m taking second hand evidence myself because I wrote that article myself.

    Yes, that article seems to share the same evidence-less blathering style you spout here…

  116. Terra Incognita says: May 22, 2011 at 1:54 am

    It seems that both of us made a mistake.

    No, you made a mistake and I responded to it.

    However, you should have realized by the sentence structure, that it was an amputated statement that did not belong there. If I were the one to have seen that partial sentence, I would have picked up on it right away and asked for clarification.

    All you had to do was say something like; “I don’t understand what you mean. You stated no evidence. Did you by any chance leave something out?”

    I am sure this all makes sense somewhere in your clouded relativist head, but to us fact based rational types, you are an incoherent mess…

    As for the claim that “warmists” (when will you start calling us hotties?) are losing this argument, my experience has shown that most skeptics don’t even understand the argument.

    No, we’ll stick to Warmists and you’ll stick to losing…

    I have given more detailed arguments before only to get the same results.

    I’ve seen more detailed arguments in cartoons…

    Basic laws of physics are ignored; pseudo facts are created; issues are skirted; pot calling kettle black accusations are thrown around; and there is simply no comprehension or grasp of the issues.

    Yes, that covers your position and approach almost perfectly, thanks for documenting that for us.

  117. I bet Tamino’s forecast is more accurate than Jo’s forecast.

    I also bet this post triggers a flood of submissions from fans of this web page for the 2011 outlook. And then these submissions all turn out to high. And Joe Romm gets to report in November that the Arctic death spiral is even worse than we thought because on average the sea ice outlook predictions were too high.

  118. After 512 votes, WUWT reader average projects a minimum Arctic sea ice extent 2011 to be 5.12 million km^2. Not that this is still stunningly in line with IPCC projections (5.2 million km^2).

    Also, WUWT expectations are stunningly out of line with what people investing real money at betting on. Intrade puts a 70 % chance on sea ice minimum dipping below 2007 (4.3 million km^2) this year :

    http://www.intrade.com/aav2/trading/contractInfo.jsp?conDetailID=744206&z=1306138389951

    So either WUWT readers do not like to put their money where there mouth is, or they simple are venting rethoric in line with an unsubstantiated belief in sea ice recovery.
    Any other rational explanations for the irrational voting behavior of WUWT readers would be welcome.

  119. quite a bit of pack ice got moved out of the arctic by that unusual low pressure system near iceland this winter. I seriously doubt the minimum will be significantly higher than last year, or maybe even lower than last year. No matter how warm or cold it might have been up north, when the wind blows the ice south, it melts. I’m voting conservatively, just a tad more ice this year than we had at last year’s minimum.

  120. In other news,

    BELUGA is insolvent, perhaps criminal insolvency (“mutmaßlichen Kriminalinsolvenz “).

    http://de.finance.yahoo.com/nachrichten/Beluga-Reederei-soll-ddpnews-3770197207.html?x=0

    A Beluga ship was in the news in 2009 all over the world as the first making the Noth East passage (though other ships have been doing this before for over 50 years)

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/10/07/the-surprising-real-story-about-this-years-northeast-passage-transit/

  121. I apologize that my previous post was considered in violation of the site policy.
    Let me summarize the post :
    I’m willing to bet with anyone who thinks that the 2011 minimum Arctic sea ice extent will be larger than 5 million km^2.

  122. There are 371 (out of 540) people that voted above 5 million km^2 in this poll.
    Do none of these want to bet on their vote ?

    By the way, I recently came across an interesting graph of PIOMAS Arctic ice volume. It’s not quite ‘sea ice extent’, but nonetheless, once it hits zero, ice extent can’t be much larger than zero either :o|

    To me, this looks like a “plunge into the abyss” which is arguably equally impressive to Serreze’s “death spiral”.
    Any comments ?

  123. The Dinostratus crystal ball is starting to uncloud. It’s looking like a bad year for icers. It could be worse than 2007.

  124. I forgot to say…..

    It’s warmer north of eastern Siberia and the ice is thinner than normal, also the Bering straight is de-iced. Not good.

  125. Dinostratus says:

    “Not good.”

    Why not? Warmer is better. Cold kills. Warmer means an extra crop every year. Cold means burning fossil fuels to heat buildings. Warmer means millions more acres of viable farmland opened up in Siberia, Mongolia and Canada. Cold means food shortages.

    I could go on and on. The problem is that you’re looking at the current natural warming cycle as something bad. It’s not; it is a good thing. Don’t be an Algore tool, think for yourself: warm is good. Summer means barbecue and girls in bikinis. Winter means colds and flu, high utility bills, and short walks for the dog.

    The correct response is: “Not good.”

  126. Smokey, weather warmer Arctic or not is good or not good is a value judgement and a valid political debate. It does not change the science, which clearly shows the Arctic is warming more that the average of the planet. Arctic sea ice will decline as warming continues. The question is, how fast will this go. The IPCC has a conservative estimate, which happens to be in line with WUWT voters this year. I’m glad WUWT finally agrees with the IPCC, but I don’t think it reflects reality. That’s why I offer to bet with anyone predicting more than 5 million km^2 this year. Are you in ?

    Dinostratus, you are right. There are many indicators (warm winter, steep volume decline etc) that show that 2011 sea ice extent may be setting a new record, beating 2010 and possibly even dipping below 2007’s extreme minimum. Climate bets seem to confirm that, where Intrade right now puts the chance of breaking 2007’s minimum at close to 70%. In other words, WUWT readers are not putting their money where their mouth is.

    Polls on Arctic blogs share the more agressive estimates from Intrade, and it seems that WUWT holds somewhat of a, let’s say, exceptional position on this subject.
    September will tell…

  127. Rob says:
    May 27, 2011 at 12:28 am

    Smokey, …. It does not change the science, which clearly shows the Arctic is warming more that the average of the planet. Arctic sea ice will decline as warming continues.

    These are hilarious predictions and it will be lots of fun seeing if they come true – or not!

  128. Rob,

    I gave dinostratus facts, not value judgements: “Warmer is better. Cold kills. Warmer means an extra crop every year. Cold means burning fossil fuels to heat buildings. Warmer means millions more acres of viable farmland opened up in Siberia, Mongolia and Canada. Cold means food shortages.” Those are facts. You just don’t like them because they contradict your mistaken belief system that says CO2 and warmth are bad.

    Furthermore, the planet has been warming at pretty much the same rate since the Little Ice Age. And accurate sea ice measurements go back only until 1979. Peddle your scare stories at one of the stupid alarmist blogs <–[value judgement]; we appreciate verifiable facts here.

  129. [snip – trollobollo, aka Villabolo but keeps trying new fake names and fake emails anyway (others tried: “mecago” aka “enelcuno delatuya” aka “gaya hap”) – here’s a hint GH, you’ve been banned, and all further attempts from you will be snipped – Anthony]

  130. phlogiston, why are you wasting energy here questioning ice melt and warming ? If actually believed your own words, you would be trading on Intrade. But you don’t. So which statement is “hilarious” now ?

    Smokey, “Warmer is better”. If it were that simple, the political debate on climate change would be easy. But again, none of your one-sides value judgements are relevant for the science.

  131. Rob doesn’t like facts that contradict his true belief system, so he mis-labels them as ‘value judgements’. Nevertheless, it is a fact that, just like people, the biosphere prefers warmth over cold. Not many rain forests in Antarctica, are there?

  132. @ Rob
    “By the way, I recently came across an interesting graph of PIOMAS Arctic ice volume. It’s not quite ‘sea ice extent’, but nonetheless, once it hits zero, ice extent can’t be much larger than zero either http://img543.imageshack.us/img543/2145/piomasmonthlyvolumes.png
    To me, this looks like a “plunge into the abyss” which is arguably equally impressive to Serreze’s “death spiral”. Any comments ?”

    The worthlessness of PIOMAS has been discussed further above. This page from the Norwegian Nansen site should make you feel better. . .

    http://arctic-roos.org/observations/satellite-data/sea-ice/total-icearea-from-1978-2007

    It shows a downward trend in the period 1978 – now but not the shocking (and wrong) prediction of your “piomasmonthlyvolumes” link.

  133. J Calvert N,

    The “discussion” you refer to is a single opinion post filled with value statements on “how Dr. Zhang voodooed up his garbage model”.

    If you find such opinionated posts convincing, then sure, I guess there are people why are easily convinced.

    Personally, I prefer to be convinced by scientific data and methods, and attach more value to scientific papers than to opinionated blog commenters.

    If you have a link to a study with actual ice thickness measurements, that shows that PIOMAS is way off the chart in terms of volume estimates, then I would be happy to look at it. But if all you have is handwaving to an opinion of a poster on WUWT, then frankly I you may rate yourself on the “worthlessness” of your own statements.

    Finally, if you really don’t think PIOMAS is any good, and that thus ice volume and extent are not on their way down, then I would be happy to bet with you. But you would not dare to put your money where your mouth is, now would you, J Calvert N ?

  134. Tamino made a prediction 7 months ago, based on pure statistical analysis.

    “next year’s JAXA minimum, will be 4.63 +/- 0.9 million km^2″

    A million square km either way gives a lot of leeway, but we have a central estimate which concurs with ~5% of voters here. Worth highlighting in this or future posts?

    (He was well on the money predicting last year’s September monthly minimum)

  135. As of today, looking at the JAXA graph, sea ice extent is about equal lowest for this time of year.

    ‘Course, that’s just a blip, not a trend. Last year’s maximum was prolonged and the sea ice extent was right up by the average in April that year, prompting many to speculate a spectacular ‘recovery’, but ended up the 3rd lowest September minimum. Each year is becoming more and more interesting as the ice thins (trendwise, of course, not year-to-year variation).

    One interesting facet is that in the last few years, the sea ice (area) has started to correlate with the seasons – that is, the anomalies are lately tending to track the temperature over the twelve months, which suggests greater sensitivity to seasonal perturbation. This strongly suggests, to my mind, a thinning ice pack.

  136. barry says:
    May 29, 2011 at 1:13 am

    (He was well on the money predicting last year’s September monthly minimum)

    You do realize that even he admitted that there was only about a 1/40 chance of him being as close as he was, right? And with a purely statistical approach, that is the proper way to view it.

    -Scott

  137. You do realize that even he admitted that there was only about a 1/40 chance of him being as close as he was, right? And with a purely statistical approach, that is the proper way to view it.

    ‘Admitted’? Looks to me like he was explaining. Don’t even know why this should be an argument. Tamino is a player in these here debates, he’s on the ‘other side’, frequently responds to WUWT posts, and WUWT posts and commenters talk about him. Seemed like a good idea to get his prediction down for the record, but it’s not a biggie.

    Even the more physical approaches can be way out. Yet here we are putting our two cents worth. All part of the fun, no?

  138. “HR says:
    May 29, 2011 at 7:56 am
    Looks like something killed the website one day before submission date.”

    there was an old (long-abandoned) house behind the ARCUS office that caught on fire early sunday morning (around 2:45am-ish local time). the resulting fire ended up setting a nearby telephone pole on fire and it melted the T1 lines providing the internet and phone connections to ARCUS.

    being a holiday weekend… the internet provider and telephone company were not able to fix the problem until around noon local time on monday 05/31. (i was honestly hoping for it to be fixed on monday… alas.)

    the site should and will remain online from this point on.

    just commenting to prevent any conspiracy theories from forming.

    email was also down during this time… so if anyone emailed this weekend and got a bounce i’d suggest resending it.

    sorry for the inconvenience.

  139. barry says :
    One interesting facet is that in the last few years, the sea ice (area) has started to correlate with the seasons – that is, the anomalies are lately tending to track the temperature over the twelve months, which suggests greater sensitivity to seasonal perturbation. This strongly suggests, to my mind, a thinning ice pack.

    Indeed, since the 2007 super-dip, the past summer minima are decreasing faster and are more variable than any other season. Clearly Arctic sea ice is sensitive to weather changes and has not yet recovered from the 2007 hit.
    Your suggestion that this is due to thinning ice is quite profoundly confirmed by the PIOMAS volume estimates over time:

    One may wonder if there will be any ‘recovery’ of ice thickness at all, since the trend lines for extent and volume of Arctic sea ice seem to be accellerating (possibly by the albedo effect). The remaining ice (in September) is getting so thin and fragile, that one summer in the near future, the whole thing may just simply melt away under the brutal Arctic summer sun.

  140. Rob says: May 29, 2011 at 12:06 am

    The “discussion” you refer to is a single opinion post filled with value statements on “how Dr. Zhang voodooed up his garbage model”.

    No, that is a statement of fact.

    Personally, I prefer to be convinced by scientific data and methods, and attach more value to scientific papers than to opinionated blog commenters.

    You apparently didn’t have an opportunity to review the peer reviewed papers and multitude of quotes I cited above from Zhang and his website. Try reading and comprehending what I’ve posted above and then I am happy to help you to understand why my characterization of Zhang’s method’s and output are accurate.

    If you have a link to a study with actual ice thickness measurements, that shows that PIOMAS is way off the chart in terms of volume estimates, then I would be happy to look at it.

    As I pointed out above, there is no “study with actual ice thickness measurements” because it is impossible to do so accurately based on current technology. Zhang’s model is invalidated by the weakness of his methods and data that he relies upon.

    Finally, if you really don’t think PIOMAS is any good, and that thus ice volume and extent are not on their way down, then I would be happy to bet with you.

    You are equivocating. If you want to make a bet on the accuracy of Zhang’s model I’m game…

    But you would not dare to put your money where your mouth is, now would you, J Calvert N ?

    How about $1000? Do you “dare to put your money where your mouth is”?

  141. OK, “Just the facts”, $ 1000 on what exactly ? On PIOMAS volume numbers, and how they decline ?

    Well, since you don’t believe these numbers, then it would be tricky to bet on them, no ?

    So instead, why not put $1000 on the NSIDC minimum sea ice extent being 5 million km^2 this year (you win if it’s above that number, I win if it’s below. Anthony has our email addresses, so I suggest he be the judge) ?

    The vast majority of the voters here bet above the 5 million km^2 number, so that would be a sure win for you if you agree with WUWT voters.
    Are we on ?

  142. Rob says: June 19, 2011 at 1:05 am (Edit)

    OK, “Just the facts”, $ 1000 on what exactly ? On PIOMAS volume numbers, and how they decline ?

    http://img543.imageshack.us/img543/2145/piomasmonthlyvolumes.png

    On the accuracy of the PIOMAS model. I think that the rate of decline since 1979 and PIOMAS’ current state estimate are incorrect.

    Well, since you don’t believe these numbers, then it would be tricky to bet on them, no ?

    No, in the relative near future we will have accurate measurements of sea ice volume and then the PIOMAS model can be evaluated against observable facts.

    So instead, why not put $1000 on the NSIDC minimum sea ice extent being 5 million km^2 this year (you win if it’s above that number, I win if it’s below. Anthony has our email addresses, so I suggest he be the judge) ?

    What? Have you read this thread? I’m the guy who’s been arguing that non-CO2 based anthropogenic forces, such as icebreakers, shipping, fishing, cruiseliners, etc., are breaking up the ice, emitting black carbon/soot, discharging wastewater, etc. and this might be driving some of the decline in Arctic Sea Ice we’ve seen over the last 30 years, e.g. here are two interesting icebreaker articles I came across today:

    http://www.thearcticsounder.com/article/1125icebreaker_for_shells_oil-spill_response

    http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/17/world/europe/17arctic.html

    I am considering developing an Arctic Ship Transit Tonnage Index to try to identify any correlation with sea ice decline.

    I don’t usually get involved in these guessing games of how Earth’s climate will unfold, but taking into account the impact of non-CO2 based anthropogenic forces on the Arctic, I’d guess that the NSIDC’s Arctic Sea Ice Extent minimum will be between 4.9 and 5 Million Sq. Km. However, I’d never waste money on such a guess, I’d rather bet on something that I have confidence in, i.e. the inaccuracy of the PIOMAS model.

    The vast majority of the voters here bet above the 5 million km^2 number, so that would be a sure win for you if you agree with WUWT voters.

    I don’t care what the majority of voters on WUWT think, consensus is for suckers. I rely on observable facts to develop my opinions.

    Anthony has our email addresses, so I suggest he be the judge) ?

    From a disclosure perspective, I occasionally write for WUWT, thus I also have our email addresses, but I am confident that Anthony will be an unbiased arbitrator and is thus an acceptable judge.

    Are we on ?

    Sure, as I said above, I’ll bet you $1,000 on the inaccuracy of the PIOMAS model, i.e. that the rate of decline since 1979, and/or the current state estimate, are off by more than 1,000 Cubic Km. The only question is which PIOMAS model we should use. My vote is for the “New Model Version”:

    which seems to be based on the “Adjusted” model:

    Let me know if this is acceptable.

  143. Just The Facts
    Let me see if I got this straight.

    Arctic Sea Ice minimum extent in September 1980 was 7.8 million km^2 or so. Now, you claim that icebreakers, shipping, fishing, cruiseliners, etc., are causing the 2.8 million km^2 (37%) decline since 30 years ago, and that is why you don’t want to bet with me on the minimum extent this year being 5 million km^2 or less.

    Instead, you offer to bet that (Sept minimum) Arctic Sea Ice VOLUME declined at least 8,000 km^3 since 1980, but not more than 10,000 km^3.

    That are the terms of your bet proposal ?

  144. Rob says: June 27, 2011 at 12:10 am

    Let me see if I got this straight.

    Arctic Sea Ice minimum extent in September 1980 was 7.8 million km^2 or so. Now, you claim that icebreakers, shipping, fishing, cruiseliners, etc., are causing the 2.8 million km^2 (37%) decline since 30 years ago, and that is why you don’t want to bet with me on the minimum extent this year being 5 million km^2 or less.

    No, definitely not straight. Try reading my post from this thread on the impact of wind;

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/05/19/sea-ice-news-call-for-arctic-sea-ice-forecasts-plus-forecast-poll/#comment-664281

    along with this one from a subsequent thread;

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/06/18/the-arcus-june-arctic-sea-ice-outlook/#comment-684352

    Also, this one that touches on the increase in average temperature over the last three decades;

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/06/25/bring-it-mr-wirth-a-challenge/#comment-688761

    which is obviously also a factor. My point is that Earth’s climate system is ridiculously complex with a dizzying array of interdependent and continually evolving variables. Icebreakers, shipping, fishing, cruiseliners, etc., are just one of this cacophony of variables that we must account for if we wish to understand Earth’s climate system.

    Instead, you offer to bet that (Sept minimum) Arctic Sea Ice VOLUME declined at least 8,000 km^3 since 1980, but not more than 10,000 km^3.

    That are the terms of your bet proposal ?

    No, the terms of the bet are as I stated above and I will take your intentional misinterpretation of them as an admission that you don’t have confidence in PIOMAS and thus wisely do not want to bet on its accuracy.

    As an aside, I owe you a thank you, as you’ve helped me to organize my thoughts and arguments about PIOMAS and I’ve compiled them into a post that I’ll run on WUWT shortly. Please feel free to join me on that thread if you’d like to discuss further.

  145. I noticed your post on PIOMAS, and I will probably respond there is I have some time.

    To stay within the subject of this post though, let me note that none of the 371+ (5 million km^2 + ) voters here seemed to want to put their money where their mouth is. No takes for my bet proposal that 2011 Arctic sea ice extent minimum would be less than 5 million km^2.

    As for your own excuse (it’s the wind, and the ice breakers and their emissions of black carbon/soot, discharging wastewater, etc. ) for not engaging in a bet with me, let me tell you that this tells volumes about your confidence in your own beliefs.

    Nuf said.

  146. Rob, what was your vote for? I noticed you mentioned 70% odds of being below 4.3 million km^2. Why aren’t you voting on that number then?

    And just remember that people don’t necessarily choose to bet or not based solely on confidence. Some people may choose not to bet for religious reasons, because they are recovering gambling addicts, etc. That said, I do find it interesting that no one took the bet.

    -Scott

Comments are closed.