SEARCH sea ice contest, call for contributions

WUWT has participated for the last two years, and I’ll post up a poll for the WUWT submission tomorrow. In the meantime, you can get a look at the current state of the Arctic Sea Ice at the WUWT Sea Ice Reference Page.

Japan Graphic: Aerospace Exploration Agency (JAXA) – International Arctic Research Center (IARC) – Click the pic to view at source

2 May 2013

Call for 2013 Sea Ice Outlook Contributions
June Report (Based on May Data)
Study of Environmental Arctic Change (SEARCH)

Pan-Arctic and Regional Outlook submission deadline: Friday, 7 June 2013

——————–
The Study of Environmental Arctic Change (SEARCH) Sea Ice Outlook (SIO)
organizers are pleased to announce the launch of the 2013 SIO season.
The SEARCH SIO is an international project that provides a monthly
synthesis of estimates of the September arctic sea ice minimum:
http://www.arcus.org/search/seaiceoutlook

We are now 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 submission deadline is
Friday, 7 June 2013 and all submissions should be sent to Helen Wiggins,
ARCUS, at helen@arcus.org. Submission guidelines are below.

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). Please also include any
relevant information on ice thickness (or age), if available.

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. Error estimates
are included in the summary bar chart of outlook estimates, as
appropriate.

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 2012.

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?

**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]

An MS 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.

Pan-Arctic and Regional Outlook submission deadline: Friday, 7 June 2013.

For further information on the Sea Ice Outlook, please go to:
http://www.arcus.org/search/seaiceoutlook

Or contact:
Helen Wiggins, ARCUS
Email: helen@arcus.org

About these ads
This entry was posted in Arctic, Sea ice and tagged , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

63 Responses to SEARCH sea ice contest, call for contributions

  1. milodonharlani says:

    No surprise that the Alarmosphere attacks the proposition that the 2012 melt was aggravated by the gigantic August storm:

    http://alaska-native-news.com/arctic_news/7679-cyclone-did-not-cause-2012-record-low-for-arctic-sea-ice.html

    In a cooling world, will more such storms occur, as the latitudinal temperature gradient gets more pronounced?

  2. Jared says:

    Lots of rotten ice this year. 4.7

  3. Mardler says:

    No need for more research – UK Met Office says the fall in Arctic sea ice extent is “unprecedented”.

    http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/news/cold-spring-2013

  4. It’s unprecedented!
    It’s never been this normal!

  5. RockyRoad says:

    Looks like the current sea ice extent is in the upper echelon, but that’s no surprise–I woke up to ice on an inverted canoe I had out in the back yard (lawn sprinklers were going last night, which was clear and still).

    But then, that’s not atypical for late spring in SE Idaho, and why smart people around here don’t plant their gardens until the third week of June.

  6. Ian Evans says:

    5.5. The graph looks like a rebuilding is starting.

  7. Luther Wu says:

    Ian Evans says:
    June 3, 2013 at 10:14 am

    5.5. The graph looks like a rebuilding is starting.
    ________________
    I’ll see your 5.5 and raise you 200,000 square Kilometers…
    5.7

  8. Luther Wu says:

    I’d have guessed higher, but you know those pesky Russians and their icebreakers…

  9. Kasuha says:

    It’s now very close to where it was last year. And while I don’t think it will go as low as last year, I don’t believe it will stay anywhere as high as before 2007 when arctic shifted to the current regime.
    In my opinion it will go lower than 2011 but maybe not as low as 2007.

  10. wayne says:

    It would not surprise me at all if it is north of 6.0 this year, has gone from last place in January, into the lead in late May… not bad.

  11. Tucker says:

    I have found that the Arctic always seems to perform non-linearly in the short term, but behaves well in the long term. I suggest that there will be a good bit more ice that last hear, and my number is 5.36.

  12. Mike McMillan says:

    Faites vos jeux.

  13. John Silver says:

    My number is 6.66.
    That’ll stir’em up.

  14. Jared says:

    http://i292.photobucket.com/albums/mm3/arketebel/Untitled.jpg

    Here is a link to a graph showing the low point of Arctic Ice Extent from 1978-2012. Use it to help you make an educated guess for 2013 so WUWT can win. I’m going with 4.7

  15. Richard M says:

    Last years was the perfect storm for melting ice. All during the spring/summer the winds were pushing the ice toward the N. Atlantic, the AMO was about as high as it gets, the very warm US brought warm water flowing into the N. Atlantic and then the August storm. The fact is the storm probably wasn’t the biggest factor.

    Now, this year we have seen more circumpolar winds, the AMO is still positive but half what it was last year, it’s been a cool spring in the US … but, most of ice is still first year ice and thinner than it would be otherwise.

    4.9

  16. davidgmills says:

    I am going to go with 6.5. Rationale: I want to see Lief Svalgard’s hair like I got to see the other Stanford Physicists. Maybe if I am right he will put his picture online.

  17. James at 48 says:

    5.3.

    The August 2012 wind event is not something we get every year.

  18. AndyG55 says:

    I’m with Wayne, just over 6.

  19. AndyG55 says:

    but darn , I would love to see the warmists faces if it came in at say 7 or even 8 ! :-)

  20. Roy UK says:

    4.7 some regrowth, but not a lot.

  21. Michael Jennings says:

    With the abundance of new ice (which will disappear very quickly IMO) created after last season’s record melt and the amount of yellow and red already showing up this year, I think it will not be a good year for the ice. Looks like I will be the outlier here as I predict a 3.55 minimum by late Sept. I do look for a slow increase in the yearly minimums for the next several years however after this one

  22. Luther Wu says:

    Michael Jennings says:
    June 3, 2013 at 2:20 pm

    With the abundance of new ice (which will disappear very quickly IMO) created after last season’s record melt and the amount of yellow and red already showing up this year, I think it will not be a good year for the ice. Looks like I will be the outlier here as I predict a 3.55 minimum by late Sept. I do look for a slow increase in the yearly minimums for the next several years however after this one</i?"
    __________________
    Don't forget that the Arctic ice re-froze very quickly. There wasn't time for all of the storm's resultant slush to be ejected through the Fram Strait before it refroze.

  23. goldminor says:

    Here is my forecast from 10 days ago in an argument with ‘believers’….

    goldminor replied 10 days ago

    #1.9

    comment author avatar

    You
    Member

    In reply to: Physicist-retired #1.8 I figured big boys like you would know what I meant by ‘6’. That would be 6 as in 6 mil on the NSIDC chart that is put out daily. Last year dipped to around 3.25 mil. I am saying that the loss will stop around 6 mil. Now we have to wait until September to find out. Any prediction on your side that you would like to make

    I,m glad this post was seeded. It made me take another look with additional information recently acquired since then. The neutron monitor index had caught my attention in that it seems to have a direct correlation to the rise and fall of surface sea temps and sea temps down to 100m. So today after seeing this post, I went to the NSIDC page and pulled up their interactive chart. The years 1983 1990. 1992, 2000, 2002, 2004, and 2006 were all at or above 6 million km2, with the exception of 2004 and 2006 which dipped slightly below the 6 mil line. All of those years fit into the low peaks of the neutron monitor graph. Galactic cosmic rays have an effect. As far as I can picture in my thoughts from looking at the neutron graph, I would say that it is going to drop this year towards another low in early next year. What effect a dropping graph line will have for this melt versus the low point is hard to guesstimate. There is daily info on that chart from…http://www.nwu.ac.za/neutron-monitor-data.

  24. Luther Wu says:

    davidgmills says:
    June 3, 2013 at 1:36 pm

    I am going to go with 6.5. Rationale: I want to see Lief Svalgard’s hair like I got to see the other Stanford Physicists. Maybe if I am right he will put his picture online.
    _____________________
    it’s probably windblown like the dickens, with his long commute to Palo Alto

  25. garymount says:

    The CBC told me that climate scientists told them that it would be 0 (zero) next year, so that should make this year around 2 based on a linear trend. I will be rather upset if it isn’t around 2 this year. ;-)
    I will be plotting the trend from last years low once this years low has been reached, and compare to the CBC contrived trend.
    In reality I’ve discovered that it is neigh impossible to predict arctic ice. I’m looking forward to the poll for my prediction this year.
    I check the ice reference page every single day. It’s a lot like watching grass grow.

  26. See - owe to Rich says:

    Hey guys, you haven’t even been asked for guesses yet! Still, interesting to see the spread already.

    For those who think the August 2012 storm made little difference, I have to disagree. Divide and conquer. Before the storm the central Arctic ice was in one piece. Afterwards it was split into two, with a huge amount of it sent across to the Siberian coast. And there it melted.

    I’m not going to guess yet, I mean tell you my wonderfully scientific prediction, but I predict that my estimate will be in the high 4’s.

    Rich.

  27. goldminor says:

    The 2 years of 1983 and 1992 {which should be stated as 1991 also in above comment} are the 2 lowest points on the neutron monitor graph and they are also the 2 highest Arctic ice extents at 7.2 mil. Only the year 1980 shows above 1983, 1992. That also shows a low peak prior to obtaining a new low 3 years later in 1983.

  28. AlexS says:

    Wasn’t the way Arctic Ice was measured changed recently?

  29. Based on my theory of embedded black carbon melt, and my belief that it reached a maximum last year, I’ll go with a significant increase, at 5.2 million.

  30. Dinostratus says:

    . Extent Projection
    The bearing straight is already de-iced. North of Norway it’s open too. Ice is thin north of Siberia. Not going to be a good year. Probably worse than 2007. Maybe worse than 2012. My eyeball says 3.7e6sqkm.

    2. Methods/Techniques
    A complex physiological model involving the trapezius, splenious cirvisus and rectus muscles.

    3. Rationale
    Key regions that lead to a small ice extent are already ice free.

    4. Executive Summary
    It looks bad.

    5. Estimate of Forecast Skill (if available)
    This is my third (or fourth) year doing this and a more accurate and empirical estimate will be made when the extent falls below 8e6sqkm but, for now, the precursors don’t look good.

  31. Gerry Parker says:

    3.527e6 sq km
    Observing the past few years it is very difficult for less than 2 meter ice to survive, and it appears that only about 1/3 of the extent today exceeds 2 meter thickness. Thus a simple calculation based on total extent today divided by 3.
    Until the warm NA current cools a bit, the melts are simply going to continue to be brutal (not necessarily bad news for those of use who embrace a warmer winter.

  32. Dale says:

    I’m going to go with 4.1 this year. Whenever there is a big dip in the record, it usually bounces back to the previous record low for a couple years before doing another big dip. That’s how I’m looking at it anyways.

  33. BTW, it looks very much like last year’s Antarctic sea ice extent record (at maximum) will be broken again this year, by quite a large margin. We are currently about 500,000 sq km ahead of last year.

  34. Caleb says:

    1. Extent Projection
    September monthly mean: 6 million square kilometers
    2. Methods/Techniques: Intuition and educated guess.
    3. Rationale
    A.) Water south of Bering Strait and around Europe is colder than normal, which suggests surface currents feeding into the arctic will cool the above-normal waters north of the Bering Strait and north of Scandinavia.
    B.) Cold spring means northern rivers feeding into the arctic will be colder than they were last year, especially north of Canada and Alaska.
    C.) DMI “Temperatures above 80 degrees north” graph shows temperatures persistently below normal, despite above normal water temperatures surrounding the arctic ice.
    D.) DMI “Ice extent 30% or higher” graph shows ice extent at highest levels for this date since 2005.
    E.) I don’t expect a major arctic storm this summer, and do expect a more zonal flow until blocking resumes in October.
    4. Executive Summary
    I expected a swift early ice-melt, due to warmth over Greenland and Northeast Canada caused by the spring’s blocking pattern, but expect a slow-down of ice melt that will be surprising to many, once the factors I listed above set in.
    5. Estimate of Forecast Skill (if available)
    Very poor last year, but decent the two preceding years. All my guesses have been too high. Last year I was astonished to see open water appear so early, east of Ellesmere Island, and then late summer arctic gale made mincemeat of my forecast.

  35. Camburn says:

    3.7 sqk

  36. thelastdemocrat says:

    Zero.
    Y’all were lucky to have enough for a snow cone last year. If the last few polar bears and a combination force of greenpeace activists and Curtis Swila berets were not out there to protect what remained of the ice, it would have been toally hijacked for Thirstbusters.There are so many SUVs driving around here that the ice is sure to be gone this year.

    I am getting my kayak ready.

  37. Steve from Rockwood says:

    5.2 million. I’ve been wrong every year so I’m feelin lucky.

  38. Jim G says:

    6.2mm sq km. I suspect that when all of those AGW climate science lemmings swim out to sea this year they will not drown as they will have ice to walk upon.

  39. kadaka (KD Knoebel) says:

    And my last comment, made over half an hour ago, dropped even further than the moderation basket, and disappeared into the pit of spam, with no evidence of it ever have being sent but an URL with a comment number.

    Shall it ever be seen again?

    [Reply: Sorry, but there's nothing in the Spam bucket. It's always a good idea to save your comment unti it's posted. — mod.]

  40. kadaka (KD Knoebel) says:

    Found in my comment on June 3, 2013 at 7:41 pm:

    [Reply: Sorry, but there's nothing in the Spam bucket. It's always a good idea to save your comment unti it's posted. — mod.]

    I save comment, its URL, and data and time as they show up.

    Reposting in a moment, let’s see if it makes it…

  41. kadaka (KD Knoebel) says:

    From davidgmills on June 3, 2013 at 1:36 pm:

    I want to see Lief Svalgard’s hair like I got to see the other Stanford Physicists. Maybe if I am right he will put his picture online.

    Obligatory correction, previously posted in the Comments of that piece: Kaku is a theoretical physicist, but I was mistaken, he was not Stanford.

    As to Leif’s picture, you can Google it. Re-verifying his hairstyle (it’s been posted on WUWT before in a group pic) was part of the research:

    http://solarimg.org/?p=3096
    SolarIMG podcast with Dr. Leif Svalgaard
    by SolarIMG on September 27th, 2012 at 12:54 pm

    http://solarimg.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/Dr-S-269×300.png

    DOWNLOAD HERE: SolarIMG_Podcast_Sep2012_Dr_Leif_Svalgaard.mp3

    Read more of Dr. Svalgaard’s research @ http://leif.org/research

    Maybe the mods could post the actual pic in this comment for you. Please, mods? Pretty please?

  42. gregole says:

    I blew it bad last year – that August cyclone messed up my prediction big-time. Let me think about it a bit, maybe I “throw the bones” or cast a horoscope, or read the cards this time. (Let’s see, where was that link to PIOMAS?)

    I’ll get back to you.

  43. Sera says:

    4.5

  44. Manfred says:

    Reasons for less ice:

    1. Thin ice due to low last year
    2. Current wind pattern expanding and thining ice and flushing out thick ice through Fram Strait

    Reasons for more ice:

    1. Recent below average temperatures
    2. DMI >30% extent at multi year high
    3. Cold sea surface temperatures, PDO already negative driving Alaskan entrance, Cold patches in Northern Atlantic -> first signs of AMO flipping ?
    4. Recent trend of shortening melt season.

    All together may cancel, after an early end of melt seaon minimum at

    5.05 mill km2

    Projection beyond that,
    Trend WILL reverse with AMO

  45. Thrasher says:

    How the hell are some of you predicting >6 million sq km for a min? Have you know knowledge of our history of arctic sea ice min on Jaxa? We haven’t done that in the entire record since 2002, though we came close in 2003. What in your right mind would make you think we would rebound from a record min below 3.5 million sq km to 6 million sq km in one year? A big rebound is possible given the start, but something like 5 million sq km would probably be way more realistic if you believe a big rebound is coming.

  46. okie333 says:

    5.4M

  47. jim Steele says:

    The ice is definitely not melting at the same rates as before. In the east the Barents and Kara Sea are most affected by warm Atlantic water intrusions but are now rebounding. The volume of intruding Atlantic water has been decreasing and it appears both seas are regaining ice suggesting the heat of past Atlantic intrusions have largely ventilated. In the west the negative PDO stopped pumping so much warm Pacific water through the Bering Strait and the Bering Sea ice remains above average as does the Chukchi and East Siberian Sea. Things are definitely firming up. I would guess 5.5 this year, 7 or more within the next 5 years and a death spiral for Serreze’s theory.

  48. John Silver says:

    Get a monkey.
    Teach the monkey to throw a dart at a list of numbers.
    Use the number to predict Arctic ice minimum.

    Now, that’s what I call real climate science.

  49. AndyG55 says:

    Thrasher said “Have you know knowledge ”

    roflmao !!!!

  50. AndyG55 says:

    John Silver..says, “Get a monkey”

    or a climate scientist !!

  51. rogerknights says:

    4.8 million.

  52. rapscallion says:

    5.4 million

  53. Rob ricket says:

    Since there are two hemispheres containing sea ice, (one advancing and one retreating) limiting the contest to the Northern Hemisphere plays directly into the hands of the alarmist crowd, who are perfectly happy to ignore the persistent growth in Antarctic Ice area. The aggregate area of the two hemispheres remains surprisingly stable during the brief 34 year period for which satellite records are available.

    Here is an excerpt from a brief article (apparently not ready for prime time) I submitted to WUWT:
    Specifically, I have extracted current and historical ice extent data on day 146 of specific years to match the current date (give or take a day or two) of 146 days since the first of January.

    Arctic data is located here:
    http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/arctic.sea.ice.interactive.html

    Antarctic data is located here:
    http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/antarctic.sea.ice.interactive.html

    First, let’s look at the maximum Arctic and Antarctic extents on day 146:
    Arctic Max (1985)………………11.970 sq. km.
    Antarctic Max (2010)…………..9.721 sq. km.

    Next, Minimum Arctic and Antarctic extents on day 146:
    Arctic Minimum (2011)………..10.110 sq. km.
    Antarctic Minimum (1980)…….7.262 sq. km.

    Clearly, the Antarctic sea ice extent has exhibited greater variability than the Arctic during the period (1979-present) for which data is available. In fact, the difference between the Antarctic minimum and maximum extents amounts to just shy of two and half million square kilometers. Is this a case of selective denial in the face of an inconvenient truth?

    Let’s look at the present ice extents for additional perspective on day 146:
    Arctic (current)………………….10.944 sq. km.
    Antarctic (current)………………9.517 sq. km.

    Of course, a meaningful analysis requires an apple to apple comparison of our present aggregate extent relative to the maximum Arctic extent. The Arctic Max (1985) was chosen over the Antarctic max it is the larger of the two and a common bone of contention in AGW alarmist folklore. Accordingly, this comparison examines the aggregate sea ice loss between the present and the 1985 Arctic maximum. The strategic objective; quantify exactly what the heck “a whole lot” means for those of us who don’t live in Mr. Plait’s narrow world.
    Current (day 146) Arctic and Antarctic aggregate extent = 20.461 million sq. km.
    1985 (day 146) Arctic and Antarctic aggregate extent = 20.913 million sq. km.
    Conclusion: the present aggregate extent of sea ice is .452 million sq. km less than the Arctic/Antarctic aggregate during the 1985 Arctic maximum.

  54. Rob S says:

    Ask me on 7/1 as it will be much easier to tell

  55. RACookPE1978 says:

    No, it’s worse than that … It’s even worse than you think. 8<)

    See, while each of your statements is correct in and of itself, each is incomplete and – each is used by the CAGW doctrine in its own way to be misleading the public and (of course) their politicians. (And, misleading politicians is, obviously, both the goal and the result of the CAGW doctrine.)

    The antarctic sea ice is not only increasing, but it is setting new record highs.

    But is is setting those record high sea ice extent in latitudes where the southern sun IS being reflected at ever-increasing rates, thus cooling the planet every year and every month and every day that the Antarctic sea ice increases above previous levels.

    Right now, each September at its ea ice maximum, the antarctic sea ice “edge” is a “ring” around Antarctica at 60 – 61 degrees south latitude. Increasing Antarctic sea ice pushes that “edge” of increased reflectivity further north (away form the south pole obviously) and into a region where the sun is ever higher in the sky. So, ,each 1 million km square increase sea ice area occurs where the sun varies between 25 and 30 degrees elevation, where the air mass diffusing and blocking that energy is less and less, and where the albedo of reflection (from water and from sea ice) is lower and lower. There is NO maximum Antarctic sea ice limit: it could extend as far north as the Ice Age glaciers went south (to 40 north latitude where ice a mile thick covered Chicago and the center of North America. (And, if Antarctic sea were higher in the past, there would be no land under that sea ice “glacier” to mark a terminal moraine of maximum extent.)

    I can go into the math of each of these effects – and, with Anthony’s permission, will send him a series of writeups detailing each effect and how and why they differ between the arctic and antarctic , but, the result is exactly what the CAGW doctrine holds: More Antarctic Sea ice leads to increased reflection of energy from the planet, and an increasing cooler planet. A cooler southern sea, a cooler Antarctic sea means more sea ice the next year and cooler water mixed into the south Pacific and south Atlantic oceans.

    The exact opposite happens when today’s Arctic sea extents are at their minimum in September each year. The current minimum arctic sea extents of 3.5 million km2 can be closely represented by a simple “beanie” cap over the north pole, extending only down to 81 north latitude. Each million km2 loss of Arctic sea ice merely moves the edge of this cap further north, closer to the pole. Air mass increases, maximum solar elevation decreases as the sea ice edge moves north, and available solar energy continues to decline. Even now, through the entire month of September, there is not enough solar energy in the day to be absorbed in the newly exposed open ocean make up for increased evaporation and convection losses from the open water.

    Thus, at today’s Arctic minimum sea ice extents, increased Arctic sea ice loss means MORE cooling and COLDER Arctic Ocean waters. But that’s not what the CAGW community wants you to hear – They NEED you to hear about a loss of 2.0 million square km of sea ice, and “believe” that that loss is much, much worse than a “mere” trivial 1.0 square gain in Antarctic sea ice at the same time.

    In reality, BOTH sea ice trends have the same effect: Increased global cooling.

    Add in the increased snow and ice coverage in northern Europe and Asia-Siberia from the increased evaporation of previously ice-covered waters, and you just might have found the “tipping point” of the next glaciers……

  56. goldminor says:

    John Silver says:
    June 3, 2013 at 11:27 pm
    —————————————
    I see no prediction from you. Can I assume that you have been unable to find a monkey?

  57. Brooks Bridges says:

    I’m basing my predictions strictly on two plots:

    1) The plot for Yearly Minimum Sea Ice Extent from your sea ice page: NORSEX SMMR/SSM1 which gives averages for Yearly Maximum, Yearly Mean, Yearly Minimum as well as Change per Decade for each. It seems to me that the later data in the Yearly Minimum extent curve would be fit better by an exponential than a linear trend.

    2) A plot of PIOMAS Yearly Minimum Arctic Ice Volume which includes an exponential curve fit which gives an estimate of when volume reaches 0. See:

    https://sites.google.com/site/arctischepinguin/home/piomas/grf/piomas-trnd2.png

    Another version of this plot indicated the 95% confidence interval on the curve is roughly +/- 1 year.

    Given the PIOMAS volume curve fit says 0 ice volume in 2015 I extended the Ice Extent plot based on this. I get (eyeballing graphs) 2.7 for 2013 and 1.2 for 2014 – and of course 0 for 2015. Be interesting to refer to these estimates over next 2 years. Note that the extended extent plot does not look absurd.

  58. thebookerwpcom says:

    I’m basing my predictions strictly on two plots:

    1) The plot for Yearly Minimum Sea Ice Extent from your sea ice page: NORSEX SMMR/SSM1 which gives averages for Yearly Maximum, Yearly Mean, Yearly Minimum as well as Change per Decade for each. It seems to me that the later data in the Yearly Minimum extent curve would be fit better by an exponential than a linear trend.

    2) A plot of PIOMAS Yearly Minimum Arctic Ice Volume which includes an exponential curve fit which gives an estimate of when volume reaches 0. See:

    https://sites.google.com/site/arctischepinguin/home/piomas/grf/piomas-trnd2.png

    Another version of this plot indicated the 95% confidence interval on the curve is roughly +/- 1 year.

    Given the PIOMAS volume curve fit says 0 ice volume in 2015 I extended the Ice Extent plot based on this. I get (eyeballing graphs) 2.7 for 2013 and 1.2 for 2014 – and of course 0 for 2015. Be interesting to refer to these estimates over next 2 years. Note that the extended extent plot does not look absurd.
    Apologies if I posted twice. My first seemed to disappear.
    Brooks Bridges

  59. John Silver says:

    goldminor says:
    June 4, 2013 at 9:21 am

    I gave the number, 6.66, earlier. My monkey was possessed.

  60. goldminor says:

    John Silver says:
    June 4, 2013 at 1:38 pm.
    —————————————-
    My bad! I remember the comment now that you mention it. I had contemplated that # until I saw it taken.

    Sorry to hear about the monkey.

  61. strike says:

    5.95 ! What’s my price?

  62. Steve says:

    5.931415929
    i needed to incorporate ( approximate ) the number Pi in my prediction somehow – other that that the base ( 5.9 ) is simply ( i think it was a critical constant + or – 90 % ) ) from a model i have developed and revised, predicated upon an earlier algorithm that solves level 37 in candy crush saga, using a minimum number of moves.

  63. The other Phil says:

    What is pi in your world? I would think one could argue for either 5.931415925 or 5.931415926, but not 5.931415929

Comments are closed.