Forecasting The NSIDC News
By Steven Goddard and Anthony Watts
Barring an about face by nature or adjustments, it appears that for the first time since 2001, Arctic Sea ice will hit the “normal” line as defined by the National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC) for this time of year.
NSIDC puts out an article about once a month called the Sea Ice News. It generally highlights any bad news they can find about the disappearance of Arctic ice. Last month’s news led with this sentence.
In February, Arctic sea ice extent continued to track below the average, and near the levels observed for February 2007.
But March brought good news for the Polar Bears, and bad news for the Catlin Expedition and any others looking for bad news. Instead of ice extent declining through March like it usually does, it continued to increase through the month and is now at the high (so far) for the year.
If it keeps this trend unabated, in a day or two it will likely cross the “normal” line.
The Danish Meteorological Institute shows Arctic ice extent at the highest level in their six year record.
The Norwegians (NORSEX) show Arctic ice area above the 30 year mean.
And the NORSEX Ice Extent is not far behind, within 1 standard deviation, and similar to NSIDC’s presentation. Note that is hit normal last year, but later.
And JAXA, using the more advanced AMSR-E sensor platform on the AQUA satellite, shows a similar uptick now intersecting the 2003 data line.
Source: IARC-JAXA
WUWT asked NSIDC scientist Dr. Walt Meir about this event to which he responded via email:
It’s a good question about the last time we’ve been above average. It was May 2001. April-May is the period when you’re starting to get into the peak of the melt season for the regions outside of the Arctic Ocean (Bering Sea, Hudson Bay) and the extent tends to have lower variability compared to other parts of the year as that thinner ice tends to go about the same time of year due to the solar heating. Even last year, we came fairly close to the average in early May.
He also mused about a cause:
Basically, it is due primarily to a lot more ice in the Bering Sea, as is evident in the images. The Bering ice is controlled largely by local winds, temperatures are not as important (though of course it still need to be at or at least near freezing to have ice an area for any length of time). We’ve seen a lot of northerly winds this winter in the Bering, particularly the last couple of weeks.
As we’ve been saying on WUWT for quite some time, wind seems to be a more powerful factor in recent sea ice declines than temperature. Recent studies agree.
See: Winds are Dominant Cause of Greenland and West Antarctic Ice Sheet Losses and also NASA Sees Arctic Ocean Circulation Do an About-Face
You can watch wind patterns in this time lapse animation, note how the ice has been pushed by winds and flowing down the east coast of Greenland:
Dr. Meier also wrote:
This has very little implication for what will happen this summer, or for the long-term trends, since the Bering Sea ice is thin and will melt completely well before the peak summer season.
There’s certainly no reason to disagree with the idea that much of the Bering Sea ice will melt this summer, it happens every year and has for millenia. But with a strong negative Arctic Oscillation this year, and a change in the wind, it is yet to be determined if Arctic Sea ice minimum for 2010 is anomalously low, and/or delayed from the usual time.
In 2009, WUWT noted it on September 15th: Arctic sea ice melt appears to have turned the corner for 2009
Dr. Mark Serreze of NSIDC offered some hopeful commentary in a press release back on October 6th 2009, but still pushes that “ice free summer” meme:
“It’s nice to see a little recovery over the past couple of years, but there’s no reason to think that we’re headed back to conditions seen in the 1970s,” said NSIDC Director Mark Serreze, also a professor in CU-Boulder’s geography department. “We still expect to see ice-free summers sometime in the next few decades.”
Remember this 2007 prediction from The Naval Postgraduate School?
Arctic summers ice-free ‘by 2013’
|
By Jonathan Amos
Science reporter, BBC News, San Francisco |
 |
 Arctic summer melting in 2007 set new records
|
More details
Scientists in the US have presented one of the most dramatic forecasts yet for the disappearance of Arctic sea ice.
Their latest modelling studies indicate northern polar waters could be ice-free in summers within just 5-6 years.
Professor Wieslaw Maslowski told an American Geophysical Union meeting that previous projections had underestimated the processes now driving ice loss.
Summer melting this year reduced the ice cover to 4.13 million sq km, the smallest ever extent in modern times.
Remarkably, this stunning low point was not even incorporated into the model runs of Professor Maslowski and his team, which used data sets from 1979 to 2004 to constrain their future projections.
|
 In the end, it will just melt away quite suddenly  Professor Peter Wadhams
|
“Our projection of 2013 for the removal of ice in summer is not accounting for the last two minima, in 2005 and 2007,” the researcher from the Naval Postgraduate School, Monterey, California, explained to the BBC.”So given that fact, you can argue that may be our projection of 2013 is already too conservative.”
========================================
Joe Romm wrote up a clever piece last year on this subject:
Exclusive: New NSIDC director Serreze explains the “death spiral” of Arctic ice, brushes off the “breathtaking ignorance” of blogs like WattsUpWithThat
June 5, 2009
I interviewed by email Dr. Mark Serreze, recently named director of The National Snow and Ice Data Center. Partly I wanted him to explain his “death spiral” metaphor for Arctic ice
So now that Arctic ice has returned to normal extent and area, we eagerly await the explanation from the experts about how that fits into the “death spiral” theory. Richard Feynman famously said “Science is the belief in the ignorance of the experts.”
Time will tell. 2010 is looking promising for sea ice recovery again. After all, who wouldn’t want the Arctic Sea ice to recover? WUWT is predicting a recovery again this year, which we started mentioning as a prediction last fall.
So given what we know today, what will NSIDC highlight in their April Sea Ice News?
And even more importantly, will the MSM cover it like they do the ‘terrible’ minimums?
NOTE: The poll code got messed up, duplicating an entry, press REFRESH if you see a double entry. -A
Forecasting The NSIDC News
NSIDC puts out an article about once a month called the Sea Ice News. It generally highlights any bad news they can find about the disappearance of Arctic ice. Last month’s news led with this sentence.
In February, Arctic sea ice extent continued to track below the average, and near the levels observed for February 2007.
But March brought good news for the Polar Bears, and bad news for the Catlin Expedition and any others looking for bad news. Instead of ice extent declining through March like it usually does, it continued to increase through the month and is now at the high (so far) for the year.
http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/daily_images/N_stddev_timeseries.png
The Danish Meteorological Institute shows Arctic ice extent at the highest level in their six year record.
The Norwegians (NORSEX) show Arctic ice area above the 30 year mean.
Joe Romm wrote up a clever piece last year on this subject:
Exclusive: New NSIDC director Serreze explains the “death spiral” of Arctic ice, brushes off the “breathtaking ignorance” of blogs like WattsUpWithThat
June 5, 2009
I interviewed by email Dr. Mark Serreze, recently named director of The National Snow and Ice Data Center. Partly I wanted him to explain his “death spiral” metaphor for Arctic ice
So now that Arctic ice has returned to normal extent and area, I eagerly await the explanation from the experts about how that fits into the “death spiral” theory. Richard Feynman famously said “Science is the belief in the ignorance of the experts.”
So what will NSIDC highlight in their April Sea Ice News?
-
The increase in both ice extent and quantity of multi-year ice
-
The long-term downwards linear trend line
-
The lack of 4+ year old ice
Sponsored IT training links:
Get free resources including 642-972 tutorial and 1z0-048 dumps questions for guaranteed success in JN0-532 exam.
George E. Smith (13:37:37) :
‘basically nothing much has happened, other than a big wind storm in 2007 which blew a lot of arctic ice away’
There has been a lot of talk on WUWT about the effect of wind on Arctic ice but I have not seen any reference to two other factors which might have altered the situation in 2007.
http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/meant80n.uk.php
Temperatures above 80N were much higher than the mean in the winter for 30-60 days in both 2005 and 2006; 18C above the mean in February 2006 for a short time. This will have affected the growth in the thickness of the ice in winter.
2007 was also apparently ‘a record breaking year for Eurasian river inflow
to the Arctic Ocean’. See:
http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/4/4/045015
The ‘record breaking’ inflow of fresh water carrying heat from Siberia may also have affected the ice remaining in the summer.
Any expert care to comment?
John of Kent (UK) (11:02:37) :
undoubtedly all “rotten” ice!
………………………………………………………………………………………………
There are some who might be calling it rotten. 😉
NZ Willy (11:04:53) :
and we are seeing a crossover back to the higher-volume mode of the 1979-2000 mean.
I think we’re heading to even higher than that.
Why is it that in a battle between actual measured data and model results, the modeling results always win?
Unfortunately most modeling currently being done is a lot like astrology lots of math and calculations with out any basis in reality.
What happened to science?
Not A Carbon Cow (11:05:25) :
Anthony, you should be commended for your ability to stay professional in the face of comments such as: “Exclusive: New NSIDC director Serreze explains the “death spiral” of Arctic ice, brushes off the “breathtaking ignorance” of blogs like WattsUpWithThat”.
I agree with you Not Cow.
They’ll define a new variable to keep milking that 2007 low. 4th year ice lowest ever!!
Break the back of that rotten misbehaving ice!
[…] while the U.S. plans its next generation of icebreakers […]
[…] long-term plan for the acquisition of new multipurpose heavy icebreakers made in Canada and capable of operating year-round […]
http://www.vancouversun.com/technology/Refurbishment+icebreaker+should+propel+Canada+action+senator/2674670/story.html
So when the broken chunks of ice are blown out of the channels, what’s really to blame?
DirkH (16:14:51) :
Romm is now censoring my posts, but I got a few through while he wasn’t paying attention.
The last thing these guys want is an honest discussion.
Mann O Mann (16:08:20) :
“Here is the bad news that will be plucked from hitting “normal”.
It is a Young Ice Anomaly and the young ice that is there is ill mannered, being that it is young.”
And Rotten!
M White (11:52:46) :
Thanks for the link to the Joe Bastardi video where he talks about this same story.
“….let’s look at the actual data….”
~~Joe Bastardi
Here’s the link to the video for those who didn’t see it:
…………………………………………………………………………………………………………….
http://www.accuweather.com/video/74661048001/from-siberia-with-love-(the-reason-for-the-spike-in-ice).asp?channel=vblog_bastardi
…………………………………………………………………………………………………………….
🙂
BTW, I noticed Al Gore’s website under the Google paid ad. Everbody click on that ad to get a few cents of revenue for Anthony. If enough of us do that, then the AGW crowd can claim that Anthony is nothing but a shill for “Big Al”
I refuse to call Lovelock’s fairy tale a theory.
It is based on wishes rather than on actual facts. Earth by itself doesn’t behave as a single organism. Last time I checked it doesn’t grow (It doesn’t actively incorporate matter from the outside), it doesn’t relate with other planets and it doesn’t reproduce. So out of the 3 necessary conditions to call it a living organism it fulfills 0.
It doesn’t have anything that resembles homeostasis either. CO2 concentrations, for example, were much higher during the beginning of the carboniferous era. Also O2 concentrations were higher.
And by the way, when we burn fossil fuels we are actually helping the Earth to complete the carbon cycle by recovering the carbon lost for the cycle of life as fossil fuels and coal. Live on Earth during carboniferous era was more abundant that nowadays. I don’t see the homeostasis Lovelock was talking about.
What happened to science?
Ecophobic Doomsday climate warming hysteria is not science.
Robert Wykoff (12:20:30) :
I will bet eleventy billion dollars that JAXA has some “malfunction”, and does not report anything for the next week. You will see the March 30th numbers until April 7th. (unless there is a sudden mass melt off)
I’ll take that bet.
Eleventy billion.
I’ll give you 30 days to transfer the money.
DRE (16:34:01) :wrote: Why is it that in a battle between actual measured data and model results, the modeling results always win?
Because modelling justifies grant applications for super-computers, which are much more fun to play with then a thermometer and an ancient desktop PC. Also makes the administrators happy with the 40% slice they get of all grants.
Latest from Catlin
Explorer Team
Wed 31 Mar, 00:00GMT
Thick and old
We’ve made good progress northwards over the past few days, so I’m happy to report that morale is excellent.
We travelled across very old and thick ice for the majority of the day
Steve Goddard (15:09:35) :
OT – Romm is now declaring that weather is climate after all.
http://climateprogress.org/2010/03/31/northeast-hit-by-record-global-warming-type-deluge-rainfall-flooding/
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………….
He must have missed those record snow storms in Washington D.C.
Here is a good explanation of how the death spiral works:
http://www.lyrics007.com/The%20Beatles%20Lyrics/Helter%20Skelter%20Lyrics.html
BUT — I expect a POSSIBLE Apocalypse:
El Nino = 1.8, strongest since 1998 … (2007’s was only a 1.1 and the previous year had a Minimum of just under 85 % cover, dropping to 61%, Much more than the 1998 drop, because once you start exposing the actual Arctic Ocean it quadruples the Sun absorption, so if a 1.1 would give an 11%, the part under 80% must have TRIPLED, ie, 5 + 18 ( from 6, times 3) = 23% — 2009 was 76%
so as it is ALL in the “bonus” I presume 18 x 3 = 54% drop, leaving 22% — but the last 25% is REALLY thick — like: miles thick. This leads to the central areas melting off to the point of HEATING UP ENOUGH TO STOP THE OCEAN CURRENTS.
… Now if CURRENTS get their energy from moving Heat from the Tropics — they ought to REVERSE, because the 24-hour Daylight near the Pole will deliver 550 watt/sq. meter (for 3 months) vs. the Tropical 400-420 (got that from Solar Cell Performance Websites). Total Yearly is only 45% of the Tropics & cut by albedo to 15% as it is white & reflective, but IF it were to melt off, the 3 best months have MORE sunlight per 24 hours, than the Tropics get.
= Ocean Current Shutdown.
= 300 mph winds starting about a month after the ice reforms (Xmas ?).
= You & I all die.
Please note that this could be stopped for 6 cents per American as Most major Scientists (Lovelock, Crutzen, and Obama’s Science Advisor) have BEGGED) and then there is the $1 per American, Seawater spray idea of the
Purist Copenhagen Consensus ( 6 cents is for pushing some Sulphur up high — about 1/150th of 15 million tons/year the USA has cut Sulphur but some people get wacky about ANY. Whereas Seawater just falls back in the Sea — its temperature reduction is from making Cloud cover more reflective).
I strongly urge we do this, as it is MUCH cheaper than dieing.
Honesty requires me to give ONLY a 25% chance of MASS DEATH as Everything has to go just right — but it is, so far — AND, even if it melts off the center area, we Know these WINDS happened at the End of the Younger Dryas BUT the Ocean currents are not identical to then
— if they stop PARTIALLY, it’s a non-event.
A melt off over 2 years would allow currents to adjust = non-event.
… The pH of the Ice Core record however (see the book Climate Crash) showed not even a month’s warning: in 22-day periods put on an audible signal: ” wee, wee, wee, BOING!, WEEP!, WOP! ”
Be Scared.
Be very Scared.
PS: “Phil” on another comment set here, pointed out that 2007 had a brief outflow of Ice through the normally blocked Nares Strait and opined that the actual placement of WHERE the extra ice NOW is …. indicates the Pack is EMPTYing out even WORSE than pre-2007.
The ICESAT died or we could confirm his suggestion the that we actually have LESS ICE — that is: Thickness is dropping faster than extent rising — in fact, BECAUSE of the outflow. Traditionally El Ninos cause More of the Pacific-to-Atlantic Flows — such as we are seeing now.
PSS: as Nasa/Shindell said 76% of Arctic Warming is from Cap & Trade (Euro-Diesel Soot, extra China Soot from Transplanted Industries, & Sulphur Cap & Trade) — the Left Wing may NOT acknowledge there is a Problem because
— it’s THEIR Fault. And 76% of the time No One dies.
I think Inaction = 6 Billion Deaths x 25% = 1.5 Billion Murders.
Fix it.
Wait, this is the warmest winter on record and yet the Arctic Ice is coming back? So apparently it really doesn’t matter for the ice cover whether it’s -25°C or -24°C. Great news for the Polar Bears, not so great news for Al Gore.
charles Wilson (17:27:08) :
I expect to see more than 6 billion deaths over the next 100 years. The total number of human deaths per year has increased tremendously since before the start of the industrial revolution.
The most dangerous greenhouse gas is dihydrogen oxide, which sometimes makes up 4% of the atmosphere in a particular location. Call up your Congressperson and demand that dihydrogen oxide be banned to save the planet.
Flip Floppy???? [snip] Do they refer to their bed clothes as “jammies”?!!?!?!?
Dave Wendt (15:04:16) :
Could not agree more. I think the angle of incidence makes reflection a moot point as water reflects so much at that angle (think glare off the sea at sunrise/set). I have also noted that some theories that a lack of ice will allow the water, which is perforce warmer than the ice, to radiate more heat. In effect the ice acts as an insulator, like in a lake where it often protects life therein. In this case, losing the ice will have an immediate negative feedback, and all will return to ‘normal’.
Having said that, neither theory is proven, and each is as valid as the other. One seems to get a lot more airtime, however. Strange, that…
I”ve been snipped!!!! For the very first time I’ve been snipped! Where do I get my certificate for having a potty mouth?
World renown climatologist Joe Romm has given us the new definition of climate change
[JR: Yes, dry areas will tend to get drier — and wherever and whenever droughts occur they will tend to be hotter and longer. At the same time, wet areas are likely to get wetter. That is why they call it climate change.]
So I guess the ice is still increasing because cold areas are likely to get colder. I am still unsure what happens to temperate areas. Do they become more temperate?