Steve McIntyre on Climate Audit brings our attention to an interesting sea ice extent forecasting “contest” conducted by the Study of Environmental ARctic CHange (SEARCH). With the end of the Arctic melt season likely just a few days away, it appears that the experts have a lack of forecasting skill for the subject they are experts in.
SEARCH writes:
We received 13 responses for the September Outlook based on July data (Figure 1). Estimates for September sea ice extent are in a narrow range (4.2 to 5.0 million square kilometers), as were the Outlooks based on May and June data. As the submitted uncertainty standard deviations are about 0.4 million square kilometers, most of these Outlook expected value estimates overlap. All sea ice extent estimates for September 2009 are much lower than the past climatological extent of 6.7 million square kilometers.
Here’s the SEARCH graph (Figure1 PDF available here) showing forecasts from several well known Arctic experts and organizations. I’ve added the most recent available data, the September 6th ice extent from IARC-JAXA of 5,345,156 square kilometers in magenta for a current reference.
While we can’t be certain what nature will reveal as the final number, it is likely that the end number will end up somewhere between 5.1 and 5.25 million square kilometers. What is most interesting is that it appears that all of the Arctic experts overestimated the amount of melt back in August, using July data as a forecast basis.
McIntyre made his own prediction two weeks before this report was published saying:
2009 is now slightly behind 2008. My prediction is that 2009 will end up over 500,000 sq km behind 2008.
His wording is a bit confusing, but what he means is that the final number will likely be about 5.15 million square kilometers.
As Steve McIntyre writes:
That prediction didn’t look all that great a couple of weeks later, but right now it looks pretty much right on the money. As of today, 2009 is 470,000 sq km behind 2008 and the chances of 500,000 seem pretty realistic.
That my guess was so close was due more to good luck than acumen, but there were some reasons for it. Canada has some exposure to northern weather and it has been a cool summer here and very cool in northern Ontario. 2008 had not been as big a melt as 2007 and presumably there was presumably a bit more two-year ice in 2009 than in 2008. While 2008 and 2009 were about even at the time, the trajectories looked different and it seemed to me that 2009 might stabilize at a higher level than 2008.
And yet in early/mid August, these factors didn’t seem to be on the minds of the official agencies since, as noted above, EVERY official agency substantially over-estimated the melt.
Back in early March 2009, I asked WUWT readers what they thought the 2009 Arctic sea ice extent would be.
With 67% saying then that the 2009 extent would be greater than 2008, and with McIntyre’s forecast also, it appears that bloggers and laymen just might have have a better handle on sea ice extent than the majority of Arctic experts themselves.
The next few days will be very interesting.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Klimate Kip (14:34:27) :
“I think there is a possibility that our planet might be covered by ice and snow in as few as 20 years from now…..It COULD happen…it MIGHT!!!”
Certainly it could. It WOULD happen if there was either a very large volcanic eruption (Lake Toba-sized) or if a large (say 1 km diameter) asteroid or comet hit the Earth.
Both these things have happened repeatedly in the past, and will happen again in the future. The probability that either will happen in a given year are very low (probably < 1/100,000), but it is not zero.
At this rate, with their predictions missing the mark, in a few years the “experts” will be able to say, “Whoops, I did it again!” All this weather keeps messing up the climate. Who knows, with the increase in multi-year ice, the extent in 2010 just might stay above 5.5 mil km².
It seems they are lowering their predictions. Ban Ki-moon warns that the Arctic may be ice-free in 2030
i wonder if Anthony has written his post for Sep 30th 2030.
That reminds me of the 23 climate models presented at the IPCC AR4, all of them estimating climate sensitivities towards CO2 doubling in the range of 3 to 4 degrees Celsius, and all of them giving two (2) significant figures after the decimal point, (oh, the horror!!). Some people think that the estimates should be right because all the models are showing similar figures. Well, this is an example of all predictions consistently going wrong in the same direction.
The basic problem is that the fundamental “narrative” was incorrect. It was “assumed” that 2007’s low ice extent was caused by “warming” when it wasn’t. 1958 was warmer in the Arctic than 2007 was. 2007 was caused by wind though it was a year in a generally declining trend that probably WAS caused by a warm PDO phase. The assumption being that the Arctic would experience monotonic warming year on year and that there was so little multi-year ice after 2007 that the cap could not recover. 2008 showed that it did recover. We are now in a cool PDO phase. I would expect ice cover to return to the “average” since 1979 … or possibly higher over the next several years.
Higher because we have possibly changed state from where were were post 1976 and there are no satellite data from before 1979. If we are in a pre-1976 pattern, ice levels may well recover to well above what the 1979 to 2000 average was.
Les Johnston wrote: “Interesting. The same group, using June data, mostly predicted MORE ice, than the predictions using July data.”
The melt predictions seemed to parallel the “Ditto” curve.
I did a quick inspection of the IARC-JAXA screen. Collectively the prediction was that July would behave like June (low melt). It didn’t.
The next month prediction, August would behave like July (high melt). It didn’t.
The Ditto prediction is a slightly above average melt for September. And unless there is a plunge downward after Sept 6 that will be wrong too.
Anyone know where the model predictions for September based upon August data can be found?
Quoting thoughtful comment of Rob Spooner from CA September ice thread:
When I was young, it seemed that the distinguishing feature of science was its ability to do better than a couple farmers leaning over the back fence. Here we have the greatest minds of Arctic climate science, expending untold petas of calculations and with an initial go-round and two chances to make corrections this summer based on actual data, not one is going to successfully reflect the size of the extent at minimum.
Whereas the two farmers, looking at the graph, conclude that
(a) 2007 and 2008 broke out of the pack during the summer in an anomalous fashion, despite having been in the crowd on June 1, and
(b) anomalies being anomalous, and 2009 starting much like other years, then 2009 would end much like other years, and not like 2007 or 2008.
With those two stunning insights, the two farmers (and a good many followers of this blog) will have trumped the climate scientists with their PhD’s.
Now if the climate scientists were not following a herd instinct, one would have expected there to be a range of results centering around the obvious one. Instead, there was a range of results centering around the preferred headline.
Xperts predict Polar Ice melting faster than we had previously thought.
Sheesh, wish I had that salary. Could’ve had some nice buckaroos in my wallet and gotten on the Nightly News for a slam dunk.
I’d like to apply for the job that predicts where the Sun will be next year.
It seems Richard Black the environment correspondent from the BBC may have deleted his latest recent report Earth Watch blog ‘Arctic warmest in 2,000 years’ 3rd Sept
As the link on the right no longer operates correctly.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/
“Anyone know where the model predictions for September based upon August data can be found?”
You can’t predict ice extent in anything but general terms because extent is so closely tied to the weather. A significant storm system or weather pattern change can completely change ice extent in only two days this time of year.
Well said, Crosspatch. My thoughts almost exactly. The way I have expressed it, is that Arctic sea ice is slowly returning to pre-2007 levels. Slowly, because one cannot make 7 year ice in 2 years. Whether when this has happened, the ice then starts reverting to pre-1979 levels is another issue, but it is by no means impossible with the PDO reversing.
I spotted this graph earlier on Crazy Steve’s site and got instantly annoyed. On that version, the 2009 current August sea ice extent is NOT shown and I had to open up a link to the IJIS site to see what it is and compare. I’m guessing that it was left of the original version as some sort of face saving ploy. Fail.
I thought I spotted a sun spot earlier, but it turned out to be a dead pixel 🙂
OK, so it’s currently September. I’m still annoyed.
Anna/Lance: I think its the other way around. Arctic temperature is related to arctic ice. A number of researchers suggest that ice levels are more affected by winds and currents. Once that blanket of ice is removed, the temperature goes up.
Comparatively, there is a lot of heat in near-freezing water. When the water is exposed to air by ice loss due to currents/wind, the air temperature goes up. Or, at the very least, is moderated.
Sorry, Lucy. I was thinking of “Anna” for some odd reason.
I know that this sounds a bit crass, but if our wise scientists were to place money on their predictions and make this public and if our esteemed journalists were to publish the results of those predictions and the amount won/lost, then there may be less idle speculation that quickly is forgotten.
Scientific predictions today like economic predictions seem to be ‘revised’ with no loss of face. A wager on their predictions may sharpen their focus.
Betting on election results is surprisingly accurate, let’s apply the same system to AGW predictions.
Now that that would make the game more interesting !
Remember all their predictions there would be less ice because the ice was thinner. Well, the ice is thicker than this time last year, one reason it is not melting as quickly.
I predict a rapid refreeze this Fall. These lunatics will eventually run out reasons why there wasnt less ice, but of course, this is wishful thinking.
I would like to go on record as predicting next years minimum will be 5.65-5.8 mil km^2. I have a lot of different reasons why I think this (especially that sturdy new multi-year ice!!), but mostly because that would put it over the linear trend, and I am curious to see if Flanagan’s head explodes when he (or she) no longer has this argument for why the ice isn’t REALLY recovering….
Excellent! Now mail it to yourself by registered post (making sure the post office puts a legible date stamp on it) and keep it safe.
Now there’s an idea. Lets see the sea ice Xperts put money down in Vegas on this winter’s Ice Extent.
“The North pole will be “ice Free” in 2009 2% (33 votes)”
Bwahahahahahahahahaha!!!
I suggest we fire all those AGW Arctic scientists for poor performance and unethical scaremongering reports about the premature death of the Arctic and instead we employ someone to look after and observe a gopher – it would be much cheaper for taxpayers and just as reliable!!!
To my humble knowledge, the “1997-2007 average” on the right hand side of Figure should be “1979-2000 average”, or?
Jean Bosseler (12:42:38) :
I wouldn’t bank on that 😉
DaveE.
Obviously, the scientists should just discard their models of sea ice extent.
2009 will be about 550,000 km^2 above 2008 and about 1.0M km^2 (23%) above 2007.
If the theories about first year ice etc. were accurate, 2009 would be less than 2008 and 2008 would have been less than 2007 and so on.
The good thing is we can check the sea ice forecasts more quickly than the overall global temperature climate model forecasts which can only be checked on 20 to 100 year timescales.
I guess one could always argue the sea ice extent decreases are hiding in the deep ocean again. (except the deep ocean temperatures are determined to a great extent by the polar ocean temperatures).
Reply: Negative Ice? ~ ctm