By Steve Goddard
In my previous PIOMAS verification piece I noted that PIOMAS volume trends don’t correlate with extent trends over the last three years. PIOMAS has gone down since 2007, while extents have increased.
The diverging trends themselves prove nothing, because it possible (but unlikely) for it to occur. This time I directly compared calculated volume measurements, which should be more definitive.
In their current graph (below) PIOMAS shows a record negative volume anomaly.
This appears to be incorrect, because we can see from the PIPS blink maps (below) that thicknesses were generally lower on this date in 2008. If the visual impression is correct, it would be impossible for the current anomaly to be greater in magnitude than the 2008 anomaly.
Quantifying this further, I numerically integrated May 31 pixel count vs. thickness since 2000.
As you can see, May 31, 2010 volume is currently higher than any year since 2006. It is also higher than 2003. Remember that 2003 had the highest minimum of any year in the JAXA record.
http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/seaice/extent/AMSRE_Sea_Ice_Extent.png
So why does PIOMAS show a record volume anomaly at present? Something is wrong either with PIPS maps or published PIOMAS volume data. PIOMAS trends are widely quoted and it is important for them to be correct.
Willis has also made some interesting observations.
Mike
The cool thing about WUWT is that it looks the data – unfiltered by other people’s misinterpretations.
Steve,
I like this paper.
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2010/2010GL042652.shtml
People using one of those old fashioned aeroplane things to measure the thickness of the ice. In this case they compare winter 2007 with winter 2009.
Generally they show some thickening in the ice between the 2 dates, they suggest this is within natural variability. So for example “Modal thickness increased from 2.4 to
2.8 m at the North Pole”. They suggest that weather conditions in 2008 were fairly gentle on the ice so there was less compaction and deformation of the ice. Much of the new ice since the 2007 low is still very flat. I wondered how this flat (but thicker) ice compares with the folded (but thicker) ice when seen by a satellite.
Anyway it’s worth a read just because its one of the few Arctic papers that doesn’t push a catastrophe. By no means is it anti-AGW it just doesn’t go beyond the data in it’s conclusions. Which is the way it should be.
stevengoddard says:
June 1, 2010 at 6:34 pm
The PIOMAS forecast this summer is here:
http://psc.apl.washington.edu/zhang/IDAO/z.gif
In a few weeks it will become clear if their model is accurate.
It’s worth mentioning that after the 2007 minima they published a paper in GRL using their model to predict the 2008 minima. In that case they predicted 2008 extent would be smaller than the 2007 one. They got it wrong then.
I agree with Steven, there are mathematical errors with this model that must be caused by the drive to prove AGW and to motivate the grant-funding agencies that Polar Ice Centre research and modelling is something that needs to be funded.
It is clear there has been some reduction in the Arctic ice extent. It is clear there has been some loss of thicker multi-year ice. What is not clear is how much temperatures in the Arctic have actually increased, how much of the small decline is the result of natural variation, what are other reasons for the decline, what the actual thickness of the Arctic sea ice is and why the Antarctic ice seems to be increasing (contrary to the CO2-induced theory for ice melt).
Since we have no real volume data to rely on (at all), objective people have to rely on the ice extent and ice area data generated from real satellite data only. The volume numbers are a curiousity only. The model used to generate these volume numbers has proven to have the worst ice area and ice extent predictions so that should not give one confidence.
Perhaps someone can ask the Polar Ice Centre to provide the data in a form that does not require a Fortran software system since most of us were born after it became obsolete. Area * Thickness = Volume (that formula was around about 3,000 years before most of us were born so it should still work).
geo says:
June 1, 2010 at 6:36 pm
“At least the skeptics are willing to stick their necks out with falsifiable predictions in the short-term.”
Yep, that’s why so many of them have had to become expert at the Gish Gallop.
Remember that 2003 had the highest minimum of any year in the JAXA record.
How sweet it is. Is that prophetic? 😉
geo says:
June 1, 2010 at 6:36 pm
Good luck getting an AGWer to agree to falsification criteria for their predictions *at all*, even over decadal time-frames.
It’s your lucky day:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/05/27/shear-ice-decline/#comment-398771
Not only did I make a falsifiable prediction, but it was possible that I could have been proven wrong yesterday:
Still, we have a few more days in May, and 2010 has the steepest melt curve in recorded history. I’m going to go out on a limb and predict 2010 breaks through the floor before June.
But I wasn’t:
http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/seaice/extent/plot.csv
05,31,2010 11,086,250 km²
05,31,2006 11,102,344 km²
http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/seaice/extent/AMSRE_Sea_Ice_Extent_L.png
Of course, some skeptics have no patience for deadlines:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/05/28/the-great-2007-ice-crunch/
kadaka (KD Knoebel) says:
May 30, 2010 at 2:38 am
I was talking about 2010 “dropping like a rock” before this comment:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/05/23/wuwt-arctic-sea-ice-news-6/#comment-396904
The trolls are coming out. Are they sitting in front of their computers on the edge of their seats with WattsUpWithThat’s front page open waiting for a new post so they can be the first to put up a comment on it? And apparently being on topic doesn’t matter when putting up that first comment.
It looks like desperation. Poor trolls. I enjoy people seeing their pathetic tactics. These global warmers can’t seem to stop hurting themselves. Is hurting themselves part of the religion?
It is certainly inconvenient that PIOMASS was not able to use ICESAT to verify their model after 2007.
The northern Hemisphere ice volume plot on the retro page of the Polar Ice site is interesting.
http://psc.apl.washington.edu/zhang/IDAO/retro.html#Satellite_ice
It plots sea ice volume beginning in 1948 against the NAO index.
From 1955 to 1969 the ice volume increased by 30% while the NAO plunged. The 2003 low is not too much less than 1955. Darn it when those ocean currents mess up your models.
Jacob Mack says:
June 1, 2010 at 6:51 pm
Steve has been consistently wrong about several issues relating to climate and the effects of greenhouse gases.
After looking into global warming for myself for 3 years now I find that anyone who says anything other than the hackneyed global warming mantra of co2 bringing disasters to the earth is considered to be wrong by people of your ilk, Jacob Mack.
Jacob,
ironic that you’re referring to credibility as being important. So far here, you have absolutely zero.
At least Steven is presenting the evidence; you’ve presented none. That’s a sure way to lose a court case.
Jacob Mack,
Do you also consider Freeman Dyson to be wrong? Here’s what he says about modelling:
Funny that some people think that volume continues to decrease since 2007 while extent continues to increase since 2007. Must be that new math…..
Mike says:
June 1, 2010 at 6:32 pm
—…—…
I note with interest that 8 of those 9 papers you cited included Zhang as an author.
Lindsey 6 times.
Steele 6 times.
Schweiger 5 times.
Only 1 paper was “independent”. Maybe.
So, if a person is quoting himself and investigating himself and then using his own theories to check his own models against his own assumptions and simplifications to change (er, correct) his his own data to support his own pre-conceived image of the world and the CAGW mindset he must claim to continue his funding power and influence ….. who is checking the incestuous writer?
Mann? Hansen?
We don’t know. The editors refuse to tell us.
NAO index 1860-2003
http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/jhurrell/nao.stat.winter.html
It is easy to believe based on the sea ice volume low in 1955 that in the period from 1910 to 1920 the volume must have been much less than today.
Note that the NAO has been unusually positive during the last thirty years. Currently:
http://www.cpc.noaa.gov/products/precip/CWlink/ENSO/verf/new.nao.shtml#current
It is slightly negative.
R. Gates says:
June 1, 2010 at 4:51 pm
PIPS 2.0 is inaccurate, period. You can’t compare it to th new version, 3.0, or to PIOMAS which rely on the far more robust modeling found using CICE. In fact, just for a point of comparison, if you go to this link:
http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA489794&Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.pdf
And scroll down to page 34 (labelled as page 27 on the PDF) you’ll see a sample of PIPS 3.0 sea ice thickness for March 15, 2008.
The Figure you cited:
Figure 4: Daily ice thickness in meters for PIPS 3.0 coupled with NCOM at the
North Pole on March 15, 2008.
certainly makes it seem like PIPS 3.0 is up and running somewhere.
The Internet is huge – I wouldn’t be surprised if someone finds a bunch of papers discussing the new PIPS 3.0 ice thickness data later this summer, after people at WUWT get comfortable using Navy PIPS data for working with Arctic sea ice thickness.
After all, Navy PIPS data is reliable, trustworthy and verified. Expensive submarines depend on it’s accuracy. AGW skeptics know that the US Navy has no political agenda, unlike those liberal professors at University of Washington.
Meanwhile, here’s an interesting write up of the old and newer Navy PIPS (Polar
Ice Prediction System):
http://www.tos.org/oceanography/issues/issue_archive/issue_pdfs/15_1/15_1_preller_et_al.pdf
Navy Sea Ice Prediction Systems
This article has been published in Oceanography, Volume 15, Number 1, a quarterly journal of The Oceanography Society. Copyright 2001 by The Oceanography Society.
PIPS 2.0 is based on the scientific research efforts of late 1970s and early 1980s. During the past 10 years (1990s), great strides have been made in understanding sea ice dynamics and thermodynamics as well as observing ice conditions. An additional and very important factor in the improvement of ice modeling and forecast capabilities is the advance in computer technology over the past 10 years. Computer codes now make use of multiple processors and can perform more extensive computations in operationally acceptable time periods.
In 1998, the Office of Naval Research (ONR) and the Oceanographer of the Navy via the Space and Naval Warfare Systems Command (SPAWAR) joined forces to fund an effort to combine this new technology and data into an improved sea ice forecasting system. This system, aptly named PIPS 3.0 (http://www.oc.-nps.navy.mil/~pips3) is presently being developed through a joint effort among the U.S. Naval Postgraduate School, various other academic institutions and the Naval Research Laboratory. The PIPS 3.0 ice model will contain an improved calculation of ice growth/decay based on the use of a multi-level ice thickness formulation. Ice edge forecasts will be improved by using higher horizontal resolution. Ice motion and ice edge location will be improved by the assimilation of satellite derived ice drift data. In addition, higher resolution and more realistic ice rheology will improve the PIPS ability to predict areas of lead formation and lead orientation.
These improvements to the PIPS 2.0 are being tested in an incremental fashion.
Believe your eyes!
Look at the blink map in the beginning of this thread.
Not doctored numbers, or false measurements, or half-baked models, or those with degrees in divinity (Gore), or community organizers (Obama), or coal-fired railroad engineers (Pachauri), or pompous know-nothing scam artists (any name here).
Look.
“They have eyes but do not see, ears but do not hear.”
Anu,
Regardless of the accuracy of PIPS predictions, their models are continuously updated with available real time data. The complaints about PIPS 2 accuracy are a smokescreen.
Amino Acids in Meteorites
You are right about the “trolls.” Must be hotting a nerve, eh?
Anu,
The pip 3 thickness map illustrated in the pdf you referenced appears to show a uniform thickness compared to the pip2 data. This seems suspect considering that the polar ice group emphasizes the use of the age of the ice to make thickness estimates..
Anu,
Based on the clear correlation in the past of the NAO and the sea ice volume. Do you think sometime from 1910 to 1930 the sea ice volume was less than today based on correlating the 1955 low with the NAO at the time?
Steven Goddard,
I think you are. 🙂
Anu says:
June 1, 2010 at 7:58 pm
++++
Well, congratulations on a correct prediction in a period when the entire record you’re looking at has less than 5% variation to make a prediction on. May and June just aren’t very interesting for extent. Maybe someday when we have daily volume readings over a long enuf period.
If late September is that close to 2006, then Steve will be nearly dead-on and I’ll have been a little high on extent minimum for 2010.
The PIOMAS Arctic ice volume graph is off limits, eh trolls? No one was supposed to turn that rock over and see what was under it. The Hockey Stick is broken. PIOMAS ice model is crappy too. You guys just can’t win.
I know Venus is OT, but I came across another interesting article about it, referenced in the Wikipedia article on the atmosphere of Venus.
http://www.whiteworld.com/technoland/stories-nonfic/2008-stories/Venus-temp.htm
‘It turns out that most of Venus’ “extra” surface heat is due to the adiabatic compression caused by the high pressure, the next most is caused by extra solar radiation, and Greenhouse Effect is a distant third.’