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.
“The UK Climate Projections published last month show that if we don’t take action by 2080 the temperature for the hottest day of the year in the West Midlands could increase by a scorching 100 C by 2080 … ”
http://nds.coi.gov.uk/clientmicrosite/Content/Detail.aspx?ClientId=416&NewsAreaId=2&ReleaseID=404755&SubjectId=36
A bit of boiling water will dent the ice extent somewhat!
There should be a law against alarmist nonsense like this. Maybe the UK shoud donate a kidney!!
Lucy Skywalker (13:30:25) :
But Lucy, you have cherry picked!
You’ve picked stations with long records, that haven’t moved & don’t suffer from UHI 😉
DaveE.
crosspatch (13:46:49) :
Actually this is not quite so.
If ice breaks up & splits apart to increase extent, although the real area doesn’t change, the measured area decreases because, in the same way that extent is measured by concentration, so is area.
DaveE.
Well I just went over to another forum I was having a sea ice extent debate on 6 months ago, where I predicted the ice extent low would exceed both 2007 and 2008, and found that low and behold, someone had posted this item to it today.
Can’t miss a chance to spread the fear 😉
Lets distract everyone from the unfortunate fact that the sea ice did not melt as much as they expected it to, and get everyone in a buzz about a new greenhouse gas just in time for Copenhagen.
http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/article/691868
Larry
Larry
I’m with LarryOldtimer on the use of the word ‘normal’ when in fact they mean ‘average’.
And I’d add the word ‘normal’ should (only) be used when within some standard deviation (2?) of the average of a normal distribution.
If the distribution isn’t normal then no value is normal including the average.
The average person has one breast and one testicle. However, the distribution of breasts and testicles in the population isn’t a normal distribution.
“The UK Climate Projections published last month show that if we don’t take action by 2080 the temperature for the hottest day of the year in the West Midlands could increase by a scorching 100 C by 2080 … ”
mmm there’s that word again “COULD”. Well, if we don’t take action against near earth asteroids impacting our planet, the hottest day of the year in the West Midlands could decrease by a frigid -100C by 2080…”
An example of how inapropriate use of the word ‘normal’ distorts people’s perceptions and feeds the AGW agenda is here in Perth we are constantly told this year’s rainfall to date is ‘below normal’. Incidentally justifying pointless water restrictions, like preventing people from watering their gardens using bore water.
However, Perth’s summer rainfall is heavily skewed towards a small number of years when we get a summer (Jan/Feb) ex-tropical cyclone. So most calendar years (at least 9 out of 10) our summer rainfall is below average and this rainfall deficit, relative to the average, carries through the year.
Hence it is completely normal that our rainfall is almost always ‘below normal’. In fact it is a statistical certainty.
As polar bears were mentioned earlier, I just thought I would relay this recent conversation with my 8 year old son who is in Year 3 of primary school here in Adelaide, Australia. His class had an excursion to the local wetland where they were going to be planting trees. When I asked him why they were planting trees he replied “To save the endangered polar bears”. I kid you not. This is the sort of alarmist drivel that is being rammed down our kids throats by our education system here in Australia. Very sad.
[pick another analogy ~ charles the moderator]
Mr. Arbetter needs to change his name or let someone else be lead author the next time Mr. Arbetter wants to predict something. Cuz he are not.
However, Mr. Anthony are better. Congrats on #2 in most referenced science blog.
By the way, if you really want to predict ice melt, you really need to be a meteorologist. Ice melt is a weather event best understood by the middle of the road weather person. Climate scientists can’t see the forest for the trees. KISS.
it appears that bloggers and laymen just might have have a better handle on sea ice extent than the majority of Arctic experts themselves.
Yes, the truth sets us free!!
p.s. where is that ‘death spiral’?
REPLY: I’ve already written my post for September 30th, 2013 – A
Can us readers of WattsUpWithThat? get an exclusive viewing?
Ron de Haan (13:31:21) : Science and religion is not a very good combination.
I get your meaning. But ideally they should be dove tailing.
Bill Illis (17:45:07) :
A rather curious phenomenon was discovered by the Gold Rush miners in Alaska:
Cold water was far more effective in removing ice than was hot water or steam. When they used hot water or steam, the ice would flow and refreeze as soon as the cutting stream passed on. This didn’t happen when they used cold water, and they were able to remove ice & frozen dirt to get at the pay gravels.
Barry Foster wrote:
“There’s still not a month goes by when someone here on TV doesn’t say, “The ice caps are melting”. Seriously. As a sceptic it actually makes me want to give up trying to tell people the truth. People don’t seem to want to know the truth. … Sometimes I despair for the human race, I really do.”
A popular magazine about meteorology should be founded whose editors understand the difference between Science and $cience.
Was there every any follow up from that German-led air survey that found thicker than expected ice this summer? With Catlin cooking the data (warmed by funds from WWF) for Copenhagen it would be good to know.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/04/28/inconvenient-eisdicken/#more-7406
Wind! It blows the ice into heaps, stacks, lumps whatever. From overhead you see more water and less ice. You can’t measure it by walking over it either.
My Arctic Sea Ice extent predicted minimum for 2010:
Between 6.0 and 6.3 million km2.
No professional reputation to protect, no multi-million dollar computers, no staff and not concerned about government grant money.
Time will tell.
[pick another analogy ~ charles the moderator]
I don’t think I’ll bother, Charles. I thought the point I made was a pertinent and polite response to what I felt were objectionable views by another commentator. That you found my well-chosen words so far out of bounds that you had to delete them while leaving the original comment unchallenged tells me there’s no point in pursing it further. The job you just pulled on my comment would have made Tamino and the Real Climate guys proud. But I know how hard it is to keep blog comments focused and stop the trolls from taking over, so no hard feelings on this end.
With 2 year ice and low solar output the minimum ice extent will exceed the 97 – 07 mean.
With 2 year ice and low solar output the 2010 minimum ice extent will exceed the 97 – 07 mean.
sorry the extra post, failed to give the year of forcast.
“Philip_B (18:37:55) :
I’m with LarryOldtimer on the use of the word ‘normal’ when in fact they mean ‘average’.
And I’d add the word ‘normal’ should (only) be used when within some standard deviation (2?) of the average of a normal distribution.”
Two thirds of all people have “normal” intelligence; 1/6 are smart (IQ above 115), 1/6 are dumb (IQ below 85). If this sounds OK to you, then define “normal” as (+-) 1 SD.
“Normal” is not the only irritating word meteorologists use. When they adjust air pressure, they “reduce” it to sea level (means an increase).
IF the ice extent is not as low as forecast, it is because of the solar minimum. And if it isn’t the solar minimum then without AGW the extent would have been even greater.
I’ve just figured it. AGW is the constant in the equation Y = MX + C. However low Y becomes, it would have been lower without C.