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.
Well, the NW passage opened up nevertheless (southern route), except for the Parry channel which might take one more week or so before it’s navigable. The NE passage is completely clear.
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/NEWIMAGES/arctic.seaice.color.000.png
“The next few days will be very interesting.”
This is of course always the case.
Thank you for this deep thought. 🙂
Been on vacation and haven’t read up yet, but what is the largest year-to-year increase in minimum Arctic extent? I suspect this year will be in the running….
JAXA appears to have bottomed, this AM…
Someone has to give this data to Michael Mann. I’m sure he can statistically prove that the Arctic is ice free.
What irks me about the sea ice researchers is that while they provide their “scientifically-based” guesses to their colleagues (as embodied in the ARCUS paper), they turn around and give this kind of rubbish to public (please note the date)…
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/08/09/tech/main5228298.shtml
Vast Expanses of Arctic Ice Melt in Summer
Scientists Watch for Possible Record Low of Polar Ice Cap
Aug. 9, 2009
(AP) The Arctic Ocean has given up tens of thousands more square miles of ice on Sunday in a relentless summer of melt, with scientists watching through satellite eyes for a possible record low polar ice cap.
.
.
.
The rate of melt was similar to that of July 2007, the year when the ice cap dwindled to a record low minimum extent of 1.7 million square miles in September.
In its latest analysis, the Colorado-based NSIDC said Arctic atmospheric conditions this summer have been similar to those of the summer of 2007, including a high-pressure ridge that produced clear skies and strong melt in the Beaufort Sea, the arm of the Arctic Ocean off northern Alaska and northwestern Canada.
In July, “we saw acceleration in loss of ice,” the U.S. center’s Walt Meier told The Associated Press. In recent days the pace has slowed, making a record-breaking final minimum “less likely but still possible,” he said.
—
So as late as August 9th, the NSIDC was saying (to the public) that a “record-breaking” minimum was ** “still possible” ** – contrast this with their estimate in the ARCUS report!
“it appears that bloggers and laymen just might have have a better handle on sea ice extent than the majority of Arctic experts themselves.”
This may be because we don’t have an agenda and are not paid for putting our predictions on the table.
Has Baby Ice toddled over the line? Oh, come to Mama Gaia, Honey.
=======================================
Just a quick note of support for the moderators. I saw a comment above noting a “moderation problem”.
We have similar issues at my site, traders-talk. It is very hard to do this job. You try to use a very light hand, but sometimes you worry that folks are gaming you or your good will. Furthermore, sometimes, you just misunderstand the intent or the meaning of the posting. Sometimes, there are things going on in the background that make you want to be especially careful, too–but folks can’t see that part.
This site is very well done and maintains a high degree of civility. I know how hard it is and thus I’m impressed.
Regards,
Mark
Maybe someone should tell the guys on “Deadliest Catch” that the ice is melting away because they keep getting their boats stuck in of all things, ICE! This requires the coast guard to come out and survey so they can find an opeing in the ICE!
Rog (10:18:44) :
Maybe someone should tell the guys on “Deadliest Catch” that the ice is melting away because they keep getting their boats stuck in of all things, ICE! This requires the coast guard to come out and survey so they can find an opeing in the ICE!
Wow ice in the arctic in winter, who’d have thought it!
For persistence in adversity – it’s Flan again!
Flanagan (04:46:17) :
Well, the NW passage opened up nevertheless (southern route), except for the Parry channel which might take one more week or so before it’s navigable. The NE passage is completely clear.
Planning a voyage? Have you put in a request for your preferred
method of rescue?
How to explain things in a simple way so even Flanagan understands:
http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=3995
Harold Blue Tooth (21:33:34) :
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”.
Unless your are not religious!
That the NE and the NW passage is open is nothing new, both were used by rather large ships in 1944 and 1945(Withouth help from icebreakers), btw as far as I know the NW southern route can not be used by anything but smaller ships like sailing boats and I quess it has been possible to sail there from time to time in the past if someone would be studpid enough to try.
The development in the Arctic these past 2-3 weeks is a disaster for the Alarmists, Artic is their main “evidence” and look at it, the ice just refuses to cooperate.
The Smithsonian exhibit says it, ‘We’re still in an Ice Age’, but the treehuggers don’t like it….
http://www.climatechangefraud.com/climate-reports/5013-smithsonian-natural-history-museum-global-cooling-exhibit
Proving once again that no matter how big your bunch of models, they CAN all be wrong.
Morgan in Sweden (14:41:01) :
That the NE and the NW passage is open is nothing new, both were used by rather large ships in 1944 and 1945(Withouth help from icebreakers), btw as far as I know the NW southern route can not be used by anything but smaller ships like sailing boats and I quess it has been possible to sail there from time to time in the past if someone would be studpid enough to try.
The crossing of the NW Passage in ’44 was by the ~100 ft St Roch. The St. Roch was made primarily of thick Douglas-fir, with very hard Australian “ironbark” eucalyptus on the outside, and an interior hull reinforced with heavy beams to withstand ice pressure during her Arctic duties. She had previously sailed the southern route.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St._Roch
This ice breaker is assigned to the southern route during the summer, it’s rather bigger than the St Roch and a lot bigger than a yacht.
http://www.ccg-gcc.gc.ca/eng/Fleet/Vessels?id=1114&info=4
The communities on the southern route get all their supplies by an annual barge (it arrived in GH last week I think).
“Starting in 2009, Northern Transportation Company Limited is offering two cargo services to our Northern customers.
The new service starts at Richmond, B.C., near Vancouver, where cargo will be loaded on a 12,000 ton ocean-capable barge and, with a large tug,
towed to the Arctic going north along the West Coast, around Point Barrow and then east along the Canadian Arctic coast.”
http://www.ntcl.com/
According to Ice Canada the open water route to Taloyoak was open by the end of August this year.
The icebreakers break the routes open.(that is what icebreakers do and why they call them icebreakers) There are many commercial boats busting through the Southern route of the NW Passage.
You have cruise ships, commercial shipping and the icebreakers all beating a path through the ice.
September 8 data has been added to the AMSRE’s sea ice extent plot: If not actually at a minimum right now (Sept, week 2), the 2009 sea ice is certainly near asymtotic at 5.33 million km^2.
This would be about:
+14.1% larger than Sept 2008 minimum extent, and
+25.4% larger than Sept 2007 minimum extent.
Gee: And the “sea ice experts’ – as recently as August 2009, were STILL predicting declines well below 2008 levels! Arctic temperatures now well below -3 C (270 K), and continuing to decline rapidly = Vanishingly small chances for any additional melting from “high” temperatures.
A comment, and two questions though:
1) The first graph should be “1979 – 2007 average” – The digits in the label are transposed and now say “1997 – 2007 average.”
2) How can AGW theory support a 1996 sea ice extent of 7.87 (17% above the 1979-2007 “average” if only two years later El Nino’s 1998 was the highest temperature ever recorded? If Arctic temperatures had been increasing “through the past 1000 years as recently claimed, then 1996 could not have been the highest sea ice extent ever recorded. (Or is there some “natural variability” invovled someplace up there that the Arctic scientists deny in their release-to-the-press propaganda? /sarcasm )
3) By inspection, the graphed sea ice extents between 2002 – 2009 (excluding 2007!) clearly have a closely-defined minimum of 5.8 million km^2.
What changed in the sea ice instruments, their calibration, or sea ice extents satellites between 1979 – 2001 and 2002 – 2009? Now, after eight years of consistent 5.8 million km^2 years – compared to only twenty two years of “high” levels between 1979 – 2001 with a significantly larger standard deviation, is the “original (baseline ??) “labelled 1979-2009” unchanged? Should we not issue a 2002 – 2009 “average” and compared THAT value to the original (hand-plotted” ?? average?
Right before darkness was to fall, we saw on our AIS and radar three ships on their way towards us. Via VHF radio, we could gladly verify that it was our friend Captain Dimitry, who onboard his icebreaker was escorting two cargo ships west through the ice. Fun to see Dimitry again, who we met in Saint Petersburg during our sailing training as well as in Murmansk during the actual trip. Dimitry’s ship, Fifty Years of Victory, is the world’s largest icebreaker and runs on two nuclear reactors that together put out 75,000 horsepower.
For a moment, he left the convoy and set off in full speed to meet us. Very impressive to see this almost silent ship pass only several hundred metres from us. With a great foghorn, he saluted us, while we saluted back as best we could with our little air horn that we bought from Watski. I can’t say whether Dimitry heard this or not, but we saw how he gladly waved from the bridge about 30 metres above the water. All were happy and elated from his visit, but the happiest was Victor, who with tears in his eyes explained how got to show us the pride of Russia!
http://www.skinnarmo.com/
This what icebreakers do in the Arctic. (break ice)
Some of course will not believe this.
Shawn Whelan (08:15:48) :
“The icebreakers break the routes open.(that is what icebreakers do and why they call them icebreakers) There are many commercial boats busting through the Southern route of the NW Passage.
Names, please. The only commercial shipping that’s going on is through the NE passage.
Also, if the three commercial ships utilizing the NE passage (all from Germany’s Beluga shipping co.) need icebreakers to get through, that means that the warmists’ prediction that the passage would be open for shipping (i.e., ice-free) has not come true. The only reason the Beluga ships used that passage was to deliver heavy equipment to a Russian site on the edge of the Arctic Ocean. They aren’t using the passage as a passage from east to west, and hence what they’ve done is not a portent of future commercial shipping using that route. The “passage” was used only because they had to travel to a site along its route, and they couldn’t delay a year in Vladivostok with their cargo in their hold.
“This what icebreakers do in the Arctic. (break ice)
Some of course will not believe this.”
Ridiculous.
RACookPE (08:17:49) :
A comment, and two questions though:
1) The first graph should be “1979 – 2007 average” – The digits in the label are transposed and now say “1997 – 2007 average.”
No, it’s 1997-2007. That’s why it’s lower than 1996. They’re not showing a very long term here.