Joe Bastardi writes on the Patriot Post:
There is a huge event being forecasted this year by the CFSV2, and I don’t know if anyone else is mentioning this. For the first time in over a decade, the Arctic sea ice anomaly in the summer is forecast to be near or above normal for a time! While it has approached the normals at the end of the winter season a couple of times because of new ice growth, this signals something completely different – that multiyear growth means business – and it shows the theory on the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO) is likely to be on target.
Once it flips, this red herring of climate panic will be gone. Global and Southern Hemisphere anomalies are already unmentionable since the former is well above normal and the latter is routinely busting daily records.
The biggest minimum anomalies are in the summer since this flipped, and the only peaks came very close to the height of winters once this melting was underway.
Now look at what the CFSV2 forecasted for 2012.
The brief positive anomaly hit early, but for the summer it’s well below normal. In 2013, it’s the same, though not as far.
But this year it’s forecast to be around normal in August!
This is only with a yearly AMO back off. I don’t think this is the real deal of the flip yet. But it makes the point that one can correlate the ice in the Arctic with the Atlantic cycle.
…
It should be obvious as to who is the boss here, and with the warm AMO in its waning years, the Arctic sea ice hysteria will wind up where so many agenda driven items do – on the ash heap of history.
This, if correct, is going to be a huge story. It would be the first summer where Arctic sea ice returned to near normal, indicative of the increase in multiyear ice and what a turn to the colder AMO in the future means! Let’s see if anyone else picks up on it.
Read his full story here: http://patriotpost.us/opinion/25340
==========================================================
More on CFSv2 here: http://origin.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/people/wwang/cfsv2fcst/
So PDO is negative, AMO is negative and the sun is quiet. I’m insulating more this summer. I get the bad feeling that Dr Libby was right (and Dr Easterbrook and others).
Now which way does the wind blow? That seems crucial as well for artic ice. Is there any correlation between negative AMO and wind direction?
There was a 50% increase in ice volume at then end of summer last year according to Cryosat. For some reason, hardly anyone mentioned this.
“Being forecasted”? how about plain old “being forecast”. “Forecast” is an irregular verb and doesn’t take the -ed for past or any other tense.
Because of the rare Arctic Vortex phenomenon experienced over North America this year (imagine a freezer door open for weeks on end ) bitter cold Arctic air escaped the Arctic and spilled down to as far as Florida.
Accordingly, this was the WARMEST Arctic winter since the DMI started records in 1958, with Arctic temps as much as 15C warmer than the 1958~2002 mean temperature for months on end.
http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/meant80n.uk.php
Because this was the warmest Arctic winter on record, it seems logical that less/thinner ice would have formed in the Arctic, so it seems logical that during the warm summer months, Arctic ice will disappear very quickly this year and come close to the 2007 or even the 2012 record lows.
I’d hate to see this happen as the Obama administration and the warmunists will hammer this point incessantly this summer at the same time warm global temperatures from the El Nino event will be occurring….
Of course if there IS a low Arctic Minimum, the warmunists will conveniently “forget” to mention this was a result of the Arctic Vortex/record cold North American winter, and the hot summer temperatures will be a direct result of the the El Nino cycle; not CO2 warming…
And so it goes…..until reason and freedom are restored…
And the Antarctic ice anomaly plot looks sort of like a….er. … hockey stick.
This coming winter weather will seem harsher in many ways because the south will get whacked as the El Niño gets set in? More moisture to frozen precipitation too…
Big pile ups of ice along Greenland’s Arctic shore and the Canadian Archipelago successive years “obducted” pack over adjacent pack, doubling or tripling the thickness. Thank the wind patterns and currents for that. Slowly the multiyear built up. And now, with a favorable oscillation set, things may get interesting.
Anyone with a lick of sense can see that the ice loss that happened primarily in the Barents and Greenland Sea ice has been driven by a warm incoming current there http://www.aquatic.uoguelph.ca/oceans/ArticOceanWeb/Currents/inflow.htm. That warm current would most certainly be affected by the AMO. File this one under “duh”.
The climate house of cards continues to tumble. Too bad we don’t have the stomach in our elected officials to make heads tumble.
What keeps us from solving this problem is that most politicians have a wide variety of skeletons in their closets. So if one were to lop off the head of ones climate change opponent, you can bet his or her buddies will be taking a sneak peek into the lopper’s closet.
Samurai, you might want to read up on how Arctic sea ice forms and how it is moved around in and out of the Arctic. I would say that you have several misconceptions in your comment.
Definitely a meteorology amateur here, but I think it is very unlikely that both poles will have positive ice anomaly. Hot and Cold conditions often occur because of blockage and/or abnormal flows. Therefore, when the weather is unusually warm in one spot on the globe, it is unusually cold in another spot.
That being said, I do recognize the Antarctic is quite meteorologically isolated from the rest of the world. So if the ice stays high in the Antarctic, and if air masses / jet stream keep the Arctic cold in the Arctic, and IF the ocean currents relent on bring warm water into the Arctic, and if Chinese soot is not much of an issue in the Arctic, then yes, I can Joe having a chance at positive anomalies in both poles.
This is welcome news. Myself and few others have mentioned the fact that ice distribution graphic depictions (Cryosphere Today) have indicated much stronger (dark purple shading) coverage than most equivalent dates for the past 33 years. It is quite obvious that the sea ice in the Arctic ocean is thickening in coverage and multi-year growth; while sea ice at the edge of the circle continues to recede. Until this trend reverses, it will be impossible to approach record levels established for the the winter months, because the area under expansion is confined to the Arctic Ocean, while areas outside the treeline (that melt in the Summer anyway) continue to recess.
On balance, methinks the the aggregate Arctic sea ice mass is much greater than the alarmist’s will admit. This includes NSIDC who no doubt, know where their bread is buttered.
So if the polar bears can hang on for another year, they may avoid extinction? That’s bad news for the seals.
It frankly does not matter what the earth does, the Church of Carbontology will adjust models as needed same way more antique priests did with entrails. When you’ve got the President’s ‘science’ advisor blaming snowstorms in Atlanta on a dog whistle phrase like ‘climate change,’ the ideological dye is cast.
You hear anecdotes about these kinds of people – literally same ones in some cases – being worried about global cooling back in the seventies; but frankly there is no comparison to the modern Carbontology movement in its staying power and increasingly absolutist sheen. Go skim Skeptical Science – the buffoons barely talk about natural sciences, when they do its always about a videogame model – instead they’re currently wallowing in another ‘psychoanalysis’ shtick with another hoped-for catchy label: ‘The Quantum Theory of Climate Denial.’
They don’t care what the ice does one year or another, they care about their movement.
Might this indicate a mechanism whereby heat in the deep ocean is driven to the surface and which expresses itself as El Niño?
Couple noodles about Arctic sea ice. The environment at the poles has in varying degrees, a capacity to freeze or thaw, depending on the season. Another characteristic is a duration of opportunity for freezing or thawing. What we see year on year is the capacity to freeze or thaw appears rather fixed as indicated by the rate of ice gain or loss. What has changed over time is the duration, or more clearly, the length of the seasons for freezing or thawing.
A quick look at the IRAC-JAXA Arctic sea ice charts shows the duration of the freeze cycle is much shorter in recent years even as the capacity to freeze as seen by the rate of growth in sea ice volume over the season is nearly unchanged year on year.
It has nothing at all to do with CO2. Anyone care to proffer an explanation or convince me I’m misunderstanding what I see?
While the AMO index is merely a temperature index itself (following a pattern of two peaks in the past century a lot like an unfudged version of global temperature history and solar-CRF forcing), growth in arctic ice extent should continue later this decade. I say continue because, in annual averages rather than common cherry picking of single months, a little known fact is that it has been rising over the past half decade since 2007, as seen within one of the plots in my usual http://tinyurl.com/nbnh7hq
“For the first time in over a decade, the Arctic sea ice anomaly in the summer is forecast to be near or above normal for a time! ”
Can someone help me out here? I looked on wikipedia, and “anomaly” has many meanings in different contexts, but virtually all involve something odd, unusual, abnormal, strange.
So…how can an anomaly be said to be near or above normal….for a time? How is this term used in measuring/discussing sea ice? Anomalous to what??? How can an anomaly be normal?
The process may have already started. On April 15 I flew over the Greenland ice cap from Kulusuk to Nuuk, across the lower Baffin Bay and Davis Strait and on across Hudson Bay – more than 2500 miles of Arctic. The Baffin Bay and Davis Strait were completely choked with ice, so was Hudson Bay. Lake Winnipeg was completely frozen solid rim to rim.
The Canadian coast guard has warned all marine traffic wanting to use the Davis Strait and lower Baffin Bay that it may be a long time before ships can safely travel there this year. It is more ice than they have seen in 30 years time.
The ice pack off of the east coast of Greenland extended 150 miles (minimum) into the Strait of Denmark. The Greenland ice cap was a vast expanse of white as far as the eye could see. All taken together the conditions seemed more like February or early March than April..
Just sayin’
Ja
We are cooling from the tops dow
Is what I said
Mike McMillan says at 8:29 pm: So if the polar bears can hang on for another year, they may avoid extinction? That’s bad news for the seals.
——– ——————- ——————– —————
Or for the humans that aren’t in cages:
So…how can an anomaly be said to be near or above normal
He’ll be meaning for the average of the 1981 – 2010 time period. “Zero anomaly” would be the average.
SAMURAI says:
May 5, 2014 at 7:46 pm
“… as the Obama administration…”
___________________________
I’ve also been making that mistake, calling this “the Obama administration”. While publicly flaunting seized and egregious power devoid of any constitutional authority and outside the scope of common law, this has become the Obama dictatorship.
Anna Keppa – “Anomaly” in this context is the amount by which a value differs from a given baseline. The baseline is typically an average from an arbitrarily-chosen period, typically a recent 3-decade period, but it could be any period (and should be documented alongside the anomaly measurements). So a “temperature anomaly” of minus 1 degree, say, means a temperature that is 1 degree below the baseline (ie. the chosen average). In the case that you cite, “normal” means an anomaly of zero. One example of the use of anomalies would be for comparing monthly temperatures free of seasonal differences. In this case, all Januaries would be averaged over the chosen period, all Februaries, etc. A January “temperature anomaly” would then be the difference between that January’s temperature and the January average. Ditto, Feb, etc. Comparing, say, the Feb anomaly with the Jan anomaly then indicates the underlying (non-seasonal) temperature change in Feb. If that doesn’t make sense then hopefully someone else will provide a better explanation…
Well, over the years the “official” agencies in charge of being “official” have claimed to calculate a running average of what area of sea ice is expected each day-of-year. Thus, if what sea ice is actually present on some given day-of-year is NOT what is expected to be that “average” then it must be different from that average, or “anomalous” ..
Plot the trend of that “difference from average” and you get the daily anomaly of arctic ice. So, over time, the anomaly may be below average, right at average (zero) or above average for that day-of-year.
Speaking of which, today’s Antarctic sea ice extents anomaly – that “little bit of “excess” antarctic sea ice that the dictatorship and all government-funded academics are ignoring?
Today’s Antarctic sea ice extents “excess” is 1.58 Mkm^2 … or right at 93% of the size of Greenland’s ice cap. That’s right.
The excess Antarctic sea ice extents is 93% the size of the entire Greenland ice cap.
Worse, the Antarctic sea ice anomaly has been steadily increasing, and has been positive continuously since May 2010 – four years now. So, when will it close the Cape Horn to shipping? 8 years? 10 years? 12 years?
The CSFv2 minimum forecast (in May) for 2012 was about 5.3 million sq km. In June, WUWT submitted 4.9. Ended up at 3.41.
This year the CSFv2 minimum forecast is about 6 million sq km. It’s a chancy business.
The JAXA number is now lower than any May 5 since 2006.
Does anybody check?
“CAUTION: Seasonal climate anomalies shown here are not the official NCEP seasonal forecast outlooks. The NCEP seasonal forecast outlooks can be found at CPC website. Model based seasonal climate anomalies are one factor based on which NCEP seasonal forecast outlook is issued. ”
This particular model looks to have been in operation since 2011 ( version 2)
Its always good to check the validation of the model..
http://cfs.ncep.noaa.gov/cfsv2/docs.html
read the AMS paper.