I wrote this nine days ago :
stevengoddard says:
June 28, 2010 at 10:16 pm
In three days, the slope of the Arctic extent graph will begin to drop off.
Mark it on your calendar.
Anyone who doubts the correctness of the PIPS based methodology I have been using, should take a look for themselves.
http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/icecover.uk.php
Close up below :
The modified NSIDC map below shows ice loss since the first of the month in red. Where’s Waldo?
The decline in the slope of the area graph is even more dramatic. Area is a better indicator of melt, because it is not affected as much by wind shifting the ice around.
http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/seaice/extent/AMSRE_Sea_Ice_Area.png
The graph below of average ice thickness shows that 2010 is starting to follow a path more like 2006 than 2007. In 2006 the ice thinned vertically, but did not compress much horizontally. In 2007 the winds compressed the ice horizontally, which led to lots of incorrect news coverage (to this day) that the Arctic was having a meltdown. The average ice thickness actually increased through the summer of 2007.
The video below shows how the winds have changed since earlier in the summer. The ice is no longer being compressed inwards, it is now being stretched outwards by cold northerly winds.
The NCEP forecast for the next two weeks is shown below. Temperatures generally running well below normal in the Arctic. Note – I color shifted the images and scale to make them easier to differentiate. This does not change their data in any way, it just makes it easier to understand.
Temperatures in the high Arctic have been below normal this summer, and in a few days will start their decline towards winter. In 50 days, they will drop below freezing, and remain there.
http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/meant80n.uk.php
Meltwater ponds at the North Pole are starting to freeze over.
http://psc.apl.washington.edu/northpole/webphotos/noaa1.jpg
Julienne from NSIDC wrote this yesterday :
I am not surprised that the rate of decline has slowed a bit during the last week. In the Beaufort and Chukchi seas, the ice has essentially melted back to the lobe of old ice that was transported there over the winter (under the negative AO phase). Thus, this is slowing the ice loss in this region. In the Kara Sea, temperatures have been colder than normal and the winds are causing ice divergence (also helping to slow loss of ice extent in that region).
This is the same point I raised questioning PIOMAS back in April.
The computer model is predicting that 3+ year old ice (which is probably in excess of 10 feet thick) is going to melt by early August. That seems rather far fetched. Below is an overlay of the NSIDC map and the U of W simulation for August 18. Note all the multi-year ice that needs to melt.
Like myself, Julienne has forecast 5.5 million km² for the summer minimum.
http://www.arcus.org/search/seaiceoutlook/2010/june
Not everyone at NSIDC agrees. Mark Serreze has been quoted as predicting a possible record low, like he does almost every year.
Mark Serreze of the center forecast the ice decline this year would even break 2007’s record.
Conclusion : There is nothing going on in the Arctic which hints of a repeat of 2007, other than the highly suspect PIOMAS graph.
http://psc.apl.washington.edu/ArcticSeaiceVolume/images/BPIOMASIceVolumeAnomalyCurrent.png
Jon P says:
July 7, 2010 at 1:14 pm
R. Gates says:
July 7, 2010 at 1:01 pm
Sounds like you are preparing your concession speech for September. “But but but but but but…”
VILLABOLO:
Listen closely Jon & company,
Pride goes before destruction, a haughty spirit before a fall.
Proverbs 16:17-19 New International Version.
stevengoddard says:
July 7, 2010 at 3:40 pm
AndyW,
Your communication style is remarkably abrasive.
When temperatures get below freezing, water freezes. You can see a layer of thin ice on the surface of the melt ponds.
http://psc.apl.washington.edu/northpole/webphotos/noaa1.jpg
Also, frost often forms on the ground even when the air temperature above is several degrees above freezing.
___________
In regards to the N. Pole web cams and the freezing over of the melt ponds– this is a short lived event– essentially Steve’s talking about “the weather”. Wait a few days and I’m pretty certain we’ll soon see some sunny days on those web cams with the sparkly water of the melt ponds reflecting in the July sun.
Villabolo, why should we listen to you quoting the “wisdom” of Palestinian peasants several thousand years ago? You ought not to go below the intellectual level of “Mein Kampf” as your sources!
R. Gates says:
July 7, 2010 at 3:33 pm
“So back to the point of what a “recovery” would mean. If you look at the long term summer minimum, (from Julienne’s chart) you’ll see that a true long term recovery back to a point that we are not seeing a long term decline would put us somewhere around 7 or 8 million sq. km. for the summer minimum.”
Fair enough if your talking about a full recovery but a little unreasonable if were discussing what constitutes a clear trend towards recovery. I would say a return to a summer minimum in excess of 6 million sq km for several consecutive years would be indicative of a clear trend towards recovery. Particularly in light of the consistently downward trend.
I also find it perplexing that we had a result in 2007 that was so much worse than the “models” forecast and this does not appear to have had any consequences in the years that followed.
ChrisZ says:
July 7, 2010 at 4:20 pm
“Villabolo, why should we listen to you quoting the “wisdom” of Palestinian peasants several thousand years ago? You ought not to go below the intellectual level of “Mein Kampf” as your sources!”
***********************
I quoted that Bible verse in the same way I would quote Santayana. If it’s appropriate, quote it.
You, however, seem to have an ANTI-SEMITIC character whose fuse was blown by a trivial quotation from ancient HEBREW literature.
VILLABOLO:
Listen closely Jon & company,
Why should I listen to you? What concern is it of yours my friendly conversation with R.Gates? Seriously, I’m not interested in your “advice”.
Steve: just found this:
http://neven1.typepad.com/blog/2010/06/a-correlation-.html
= Wayne Davidson’s prediction for the 2010 Summer melt:
(Wayne Davidson is a meteorological observer who has been stationed in Resolute Bay (or Qausuittuq, ‘the place with no dawn’ as the Inuit call it) for 25 years now, accorsing to Neven)
… In September 2009 he stated: “If El-Nino persists till the spring, and La-Nina follows, ships at the Pole will wander unobstructed in August 2010.”
Mr. Davidson believes the LA NINA brings sunny Skies.
Thus the ultimate Bad is a Strong El Nino & a quick transition as changes in the AIR, take less time to reach the Arctic than warm Ocean currents at their measely 3 knots. Thus 2007 = warm + Clear at the same time, because the Clearing came fast and the Warming, though created first, was Slow . (Or, remember: the East Coast last Winter: El Nino humid Air dumped into LaNina storms still moving up the east Coast = Super Snows – – so combined affects are common ).
His website http://www.eh2r.com/
Now as the La Nina (cold) is following LATER than in 2007 we can expect cloudy skies UNTIL it catches up.
from:
http://www.cpc.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/ocean/index/heat_content_index.txt
Equtorial Heat Content (average temperature in the upper 300 meters, deg C)
MONTH 130E-80W 160E-80W 180W-100W
2006-12 + .51 + .68 + .86
2007–1 -.18 -.20 -.46
2007–2 -.48 -.58 -.77
– – – –
2010–3 + .41 + .65 + .97 El Nino
2010–4 -.06 -.01 -.06
2010–5 -.66 -.83 -1.00 La Nina
2010–6 -.83 -1.12 -1.34 POWERFUL La NINA !
Australian site http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/enso/
Monthly sea surface temperatures:
________May___ Jun__Temperature change
Nino3___ +0.1__ −0.3 = 0.4°C cooler
Nino3.4__ 0.0__ −0.4 = 0.4°C cooler
Nino4___ +0.3__ 0.0 = 0.3°C cooler
The info seems lagged for both except the actual Sea temp charts … while the Aussies lead off with: “Trend towards La Niña continues” NOAA proclaims the Pacific is “ENSO-nuetral” http://www.cpc.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/enso_advisory/
with the rest of the report showing EVERY Nino area & over 2/3rds of the Equator is below norm..– but the New Rules require 5 months before declaring a La Nina. Their “ensemble” prediction has it crossing the critical -.5 mark on JUNE 1st.
However if the lag to the Arctic Skies is two months, it may not Clear till August.
And by August, Sunlight is plunging even if it is clear – – see: http://www.eoearth.org/image/Insolation_graph.gif
It would still kill the Ice, but not overheat the water = Reverse the currents = 300 mph Storms.
Daily 2007: 2010 JAXA EXTENT http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/seaice/extent/plot.csv
Comparing ____2007____ to____2010
July 4-5 ___ – 89,844 _____- 99,541 km2
July 5-6 ___ – 93,125 _____- 33,740 … 2010 is only 151,406 ahead.
All 4 Norsex indexes now show 2007 ahead but Jaxa or Bremen AMSR-E, or NSIDC (barely).
PS: an ANOMALY means the DIFFERENCE FROM NORM.
As almost everyone uses a slightly base of years to get their “Norm” – – read the fine Print CAREFULLY.
David W says:
July 7, 2010 at 4:26 pm
R. Gates says:
July 7, 2010 at 3:33 pm
“So back to the point of what a “recovery” would mean. If you look at the long term summer minimum, (from Julienne’s chart) you’ll see that a true long term recovery back to a point that we are not seeing a long term decline would put us somewhere around 7 or 8 million sq. km. for the summer minimum.”
Fair enough if your talking about a full recovery but a little unreasonable if were discussing what constitutes a clear trend towards recovery. I would say a return to a summer minimum in excess of 6 million sq km for several consecutive years would be indicative of a clear trend towards recovery. Particularly in light of the consistently downward trend.
I also find it perplexing that we had a result in 2007 that was so much worse than the “models” forecast and this does not appear to have had any consequences in the years that followed.
___________
If by consequences, you mean the Arctic sea ice disappearing completely by 2013?
You are right, why did we have the big drop in 2007 and then a leveling off (hardly a recovery, statistically speaking) in 2008 & 2009, but not follow on drops on 2008 & 2009? I must go back to chaos theory for this, and assume that we have a combination or group of chaotic oscillating attractors, that each are tugging at the Arctic in different ways. I find it most remarkable actually, that considering the depth and length of the solar minimum, that we did not see a more robust recovery. We saw very low total solar irradiance and very high GCR’s for an extended period in 2008-2009, as well as a La Nina, and in looking only at those, one would have thought that both those would provide even more of a lift to the Arctic sea ice. And I hate to keep “harping” on this, but the new chaotic attractor on the block in the Arctic is the Dipole Anomaly, which many experts would simply call “polar amplification” or positive feedback. They are correct, but I prefer to look at it more from a chaos theory standpoint, as I think it may set the stage for what could be ahead in the Arctic, and helps me to understand why the system didn’t spiral down more after 2007. In essence, we have competing chaotic attractors, each tugging the Arctic in directions that are often quite opposite.
With the solar minimum well passed us (yes, Virginia, we will have a Solar Max in 2013), and GCR’s decreasing and total solar irradiance increasing (though sluggishly), we are going to see these oscillating chaotic attractors become more entrained (as opposed to competing with) the Arctic Dipole Anomaly between now and 2013. Hence, while I haven’t forecast a new low this summer in sea ice (4.5 million sq. km) it will be lower than 2008 or 2009, as we have not quite pulled away from the lingering effects of the solar minimum or increased GCR’s. But I do see a new record (or several in a row) as total solar irradiance aligns more with the strengthening DA to send seasonal Arctic sea ice down to the 2.0 million sq. km. range by 2015.
Bob Kutz says:
July 7, 2010 at 2:14 pm
A little help here; somebody check my math;
Working Just from eyeballing graphs; looks like ice volume on or about June 1 would have been roughly 10 million km^2 (Ice Area) x 2.55 m(ave thickness) to get 25.5 million km^3 of ice. (10,000,000 km ^2 = 10,000,000,000,000 m^2, times 2.55 m = 25,500,000,000,000 cubic meters = 25.5 million cubic km, I think that’s right, anyway back to our story)
No that’s 25,500 km^3
David W says:
July 7, 2010 at 4:26 pm
David, climate models do show events like what happened in 2007.
And sometimes they show a recovery for a few years afterwards, and sometimes not.
The NCAR CCSM3 climate model performs best overall relative to the observational record, and this model shows evidence of rapid transitions towards a seasonally ice-free Arctic state under increased levels of atmospheric GHGs. The difference in the observed September ice extent between 2006 and 2007 was 1.59 million sq-km which is a similar order of magnitude of some of the ensemble runs from CCSM3 before such an abrupt transition occurs. But some of the model runs also indicate a recovery for a few or more years after a large drop, followed again by a more gradual decline.
In the models you can interpret it like this, sometimes natural variability is “in phase” with the forced change and dramatic ice loss occurs which can be further enhanced by natural feedback processes, and sometimes natural variability is “out of phase” with the forced change and a temporary recovery may occur. But eventually the natural variability will once again be in phase with the forced change and large ice loss will once again occur. When I look at what happened in 2007, I view it in that context. A thinning ice cover over the last few decades allowed the ice pack to be very vulnerable to forcing by an atmospheric/oceanic pattern conducive to ice loss. 2007 was not unique in terms of its atmospheric and oceanic forcing, but when you had thicker ice, you didn’t get such a large drop in ice extent since the ice was still thick enough to survive (even though volume loss was equivalent). But in a thinner ice regime, it’s not, and large drops in ice extent can occur.
I would point out though that in climate model simulations, there is no evidence of a tipping point, no value of ice thickness or ice concentration or ice extent that you have to reach before a rapid transition towards a seasonally ice-free Arctic state occurs. The only thing that appears obvious, is that the ice needs to be thin enough so that it cannot survive an anomalous atmospheric or oceanic forcing. When I compared ICESat derived ice thickness fields from March 2007 with those in CCSM3 before abrupt transitions occurred, the thickness fields were about the same.
David W says:
July 7, 2010 at 4:26 pm
…..I also find it perplexing that we had a result in 2007 that was so much worse than the “models” forecast and this does not appear to have had any consequences in the years that followed.
_________________________________________________________________________
The 2007 ice “melt” was not melting from abnormally high temperatures but a wind event. The wind blew the fragmented ice out of the Acrtic sea into the warmer ocean waters where it melted. It also blew ice on top of ice so although the extent and area decreased the actual amount of ice did not decrease as much because you had two “ice cubes” stacked on top of one another.
At least that is my understanding of the 200y ice “melt” event.
Julienne says:
July 7, 2010 at 3:15 pm
Thank you so much for your return comment. From what I read from the link you gave I think that is exactly what I have been searching for on and off for months. I have experience in such type of projections, conical tangent at 70º N while to a standard ellipsoid, parameter given in the documentation. It also seems to pass through NSIDC brightness to concentration algorithms which is what I was after (don’t want to attempt to write that of course, shudder!).
When they say near-real-time as 3 to 6 month files, are those files then updated daily to today or yesterday? That was the only aspect not explicitly explained.
So, all of this seems to imply that the 850 MB file of 1870 to 2008 historic concentration file that I downloaded yesterday and wrote an interface program is but a translation of projections to a flat constant area grid and the readings converted from byte format to a text percentage. If I could hear from you again, is that correct? (could spend an hour digging for that statement but you might already know 🙂
@ur momisugly Julienne – July 7, 2010 at 3:15 pm
Oh Julienne, that last statement on the ASCII file, I realize there are some touchy points of exactly where the center is and whether the concentration is includes in it or a neighboring cell, and such. The cells from the two projections of course also would not align. I wasn’t asking to that kind of depth, just generally.
I think this calls for a “Celebrity Ice Stunt” by the WUWT crew. First, you hotdog over an ice covered landscape with a tricked out Hummer dragging a giant rubber duck. (Or floatie Polar Bear) Your mission: to find open water for your tailgate party. Alas, finding none, you deploy a crane with a giant auger to cut a hole in the ice. Down 10 feet, you don’t find any water, only the frozen abandoned (color coordinated) fuel barrels from the Catlin expedition. Then the beer girls jump out and a bonfire appears, and everybody parties. The camera pans away to a scene of eternal white.
I think we could get Bud Ice to sponsor….. 🙂
I have confirmed that PIPS 2.0 is meant to be used for navigation purposes only, and should not be used to make quantitative measurements of ice volume, as these will lead to extremely high biased volume estimates, given the conservative nature of thickness values, who’s sole purpose is to provide for safe transiting of submarines under said ice.
When in doubt, shoot the messenger.
So long as PIPS has been equally “conservative” then it is useful. Only if the measurement method and attribution is changed can the data be suspect. (In the end all the data we get on the ice is relative, because all of it is obtained via indirect means. It’s not like any of them take direct physical readings.
The people running PIPS have no dog in the AGW fight. Their interest is elsewhere, obviously. Data unbiased by models or assumptions of what will happen are pretty rare in this field, and should be treasured.
Not bagged just because you don’t like the result.
Steve,
A couple of days ago, I had come to the conclusion that your arguments and evidence have been more persuasive than those of Gates. But now that you are congratulating yourself, I would caution you — Pride goes before the fall!
As you stated in previous posts, weather (winds) can turn on you. Concerning DMI’s temperatures, from June 10 to date, they have followed 2007’s track quite closely, so I doubt you should take comfort in those.
Gates,
Again, I commend you for your bravery in projecting early that 2010’s minimum would be close to 2007’s. However, I do object to your inference that the 1980 to 2000 level is normal. That is like looking at the MLB standings on April 15, noting that the Toronto Blue Jays lead the American League East, and declaring that leadership be normal. And your posts definitely made it a contest, so your protests otherwise seem disingenuous. Nevertheless, your declaration that you will be around in September speaks well of your integrity. And who knows? — the weather could turn toward your favor!
R. Gates
“With the solar minimum well passed us (yes, Virginia, we will have a Solar Max in 2013), and GCR’s decreasing and total solar irradiance increasing (though sluggishly), we are going to see these oscillating chaotic attractors become more entrained (as opposed to competing with) the Arctic Dipole Anomaly between now and 2013. Hence, while I haven’t forecast a new low this summer in sea ice (4.5 million sq. km) it will be lower than 2008 or 2009, as we have not quite pulled away from the lingering effects of the solar minimum or increased GCR’s. But I do see a new record (or several in a row) as total solar irradiance aligns more with the strengthening DA to send seasonal Arctic sea ice down to the 2.0 million sq. km. range by 2015.”
Looking at the Hathaway prediction graph, the peak of the last cycle was mid 2000, meaning that there was a lag of at least 7 years to the minimum ice extent.
Given that the bottom of the last cycle was mid last year, I’d suggest that you are underestimating the lag time between solar cycle and ice extent changes.
Interestingly, since we have only had accurate ice extent data since 1979, we can’t even really say if the lag could be longer than the length of a single cycle.
Personally I don’t think Arctic ice extent is a very good indicator of anything much.
During the last ice age polar ice reached down to much lower latitudes, and the sheer volume of ice was huge. Since then there has been a general trend of ice loss. At a constant temperature the rate of ice melt varies in relation to surface area to volume ratio, which means that melt speed increases the closer you get to zero ice (without any temperature change).
You could argue that accelerating ice extent loss is the default, and any slowing or plateauing is a sign of temperature drop.
Sean Peake says:
July 7, 2010 at 3:05 pm
Here’s his website:
http://www.lewispugh.com/pages/default.aspx
You’ll probably want to hold your nose while you read his self promotions.
He’s a P.T. Barnum of the 21st century.
Gail Combs says:
July 7, 2010 at 5:24 pm
David W says:
July 7, 2010 at 4:26 pm
“The 2007 ice “melt” was not melting from abnormally high temperatures but a wind event. The wind blew the fragmented ice out of the Acrtic sea into the warmer ocean waters where it melted. It also blew ice on top of ice so although the extent and area decreased the actual amount of ice did not decrease as much because you had two “ice cubes” stacked on top of one another.
At least that is my understanding of the 200y ice “melt” event.”
I understand this Gail.
However, it does not alter the fact the 2007 result left the Artic Ice pack in a far more vulnerable and unstable condition than it had been previously. A lot of multi-year ice was lost. In this context the increases in 2008 and 2009 take on a far greater degree of significance to me. It would be unreasonable to have expected a quick return to 2006 levels given how much ice was lost in 2007. 2006 began with a much greater amount of stable multi year ice than 2008 or 2009. Should we see an extent this year that is close to or exceeds the 2006 minimum, to me that will be a significant result.
It is worth noting, btw that 2003, 2004 and 2005 all had slow early season melts but greater late season melts than 2006 to 2009. It does appear that when ice loss is high in the period before July that it will be much slower later in the season. I believe this is what we will see this year.
David W,
You are over reacting: “…it does not alter the fact the 2007 result left the Artic Ice pack in a far more vulnerable and unstable condition than it had been previously.”
‘Vulnerable’ and ‘unstable’ are subjective opinions without any empirical validation. First, show us that the current conditions are anything out of the ordinary over the past ten millennia of the Holocene. Extrapolating your assumptions based on a 1979 – 2010 time frame is not science, because it does not follow the scientific method; it is not testable. It is simply alarmism that we can do without.
Show us that what is occurring is anything but natural regional variation, and I for one will sit up straight and pay attention.
David W
Most of the loss of multi-year ice in 2007 occurred during the winter, not the summer. It had nothing to do with warm air temperatures.
An Inquirer
I am looking at much more than air temperatures for my analysis.
Completely OT.
Spain won Wimbledon, today’s leg of the Tour, and is about to win the World Cup. Pretty spectacular performance for one relatively small country.
Apologies to any one from Holland reading this …
stevengoddard says:
July 7, 2010 at 7:44 pm
Yeah yeah. Wait till next year!
Um er four years!
I’m rooting for the Dutch, it’s the underdog thing. Hey wait a minute, maybe that’s why I’m a skeptic? Hmm Holy Great Insights Batman!
Keep up the good work (you and all commenters). Your posts are informative and fun. One of the few sites where you can read BOTH sides without the typical labels flying around. This site also avoids the other common configuration of the “dogpile”, where the regulars tee up and jump on the “one other guy” they let post.