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
kadaka (KD Knoebel) says:
July 9, 2010 at 2:50 am
Plus in you hideous comment above you are whining about Steve’s forecasting abilities when the experts of the Barrow site didn’t forecast the July 4th loss either. At the start of July 5 they were so confident the ice was going to stay around they even added a day to their prediction!
Utter rubbish, Steve had his fixation about the ‘record lateness’ of the breakout and couldn’t see beyond that. The ‘experts’ you talk about was a ‘bot’ projecting based on a projection of the cumulative shortwave since June 5th. When the data went down on the 5th losing the real data for about 20 days it erroneously increased its projection, when the real data was replaced the projection went to the 5th!
On June 25, using satellite images going to June 24, Steve made his “landfast ice” statement, while asking readers “What do you see?” and giving that statement as one of his observations. On June 26 he made reference to the statement in his previous post.
I told him he was wrong and the landfast ice was showing changes on June 25, 2010 at 11:04 am. Which resulted in the usual abuse from Steve (June 25, 2010 at 12:14 pm).
On June 26, 2010 at 9:19 am I pointed out following his post “Latest Barrow Ice Breakup On Record?” that the fast ice was already breaking up at Barrow. The Barrow site was down over the weekend otherwise Steve’s errors would have become apparent right after he posted it.
“Fortunately for Steve the Barrow site was down over the weekend otherwise his comments would have almost immediately contradicted since the fast ice at Barrow broke up over the weekend. As I mentioned just before the site went down it was showing ice free off the beach (25th at 19:22) with a boat in close to shore, in the fog the only ice visible is to the northeast.
http://i302.photobucket.com/albums/nn107/Sprintstar400/ABCam.jpg
Now the fog is gone and a remnant of the fast ice can be seen drifting offshore:
http://i302.photobucket.com/albums/nn107/Sprintstar400/ABCam-1.jpg
Contrary to Steve’s claim that nothing was happening to the ice if you look at the radar over the last few days you can see small pieces breaking off until about the morning of the 25th when it totally disintegrated and blew offshore. Steve expects the fast ice to the northeast to hang around for another two weeks, doesn’t seem very likely. ”
Following Steve’s “Barrow Update” I posted on July 4, 2010 at 8:38 am:
“Judging by the large amount of ice debris (much of it dirty) drifting down the coast past Barrow today it looks like the breakup has started.”
However, on July 4, 2010 at 9:16 am Steve posted:”I can’t imagine what it is that you are arguing about. The University of Alaska predicts that the ice will break up on July 7. Satellite photos from today show that the ice is intact. Followed on July 4, 2010 at 9:18 pm by: “The ice is still there.”
Clearly it wasn’t!
In another post dated later on 4th July Steve said: “It appears quite possible that the landfast ice breakup date at Point Barrow will beat the record for the latest ever (July 10.)”
Still nothing deters Steve, at July 5, 2010 at 4:50 am he posted:
“The satellite photos which I already provided you from July 1-July 4 show no change in the ice.
Like Anu, you seem to be having difficulty interpreting very basic information.”
Of course he was unable (or unwilling) to give the date and time for those images, which in any case because of resolution and cloud didn’t show anything. He was clearly unable to interpret the basic information which was indicating that breakup at NARL had started.
You even deigned to chip about how solid the ice was at the former mass balance site this year, well it’s gone already:
http://rapidfire.sci.gsfc.nasa.gov/realtime/single.php?2010190/crefl2_143.A2010190140000-2010190140500.250m.jpg
Steve on July 5, 2010 at 9:18 am reassured you:
“kadaka
I expect that the ice will last longer than July 8.”
Unfortunately for Steve it had already broken up by then, and the evidence had been on the Barrow site for 24hrs.
Steve was completely off on his predictions about the breakup at Barrow, which is no big deal except for his persistent refusal to accept contradictory data and to attack anyone who points out his errors.
Steve was completely off on his predictions about the breakup at Barrow, which is no big deal except for his persistent refusal to accept contradictory data and to attack anyone who points out his errors.
Phil is right.
getting a forecast wrong, is not that bad.
getting a forecast wrong, when the ice was gone already, was a little funny, but also not such a big thing.
ignoring the evidence that was presented, was pretty bad.
but the worst part is this: Steven was drawing wild conclusions about the arctic from the thickness of barrow ice, when that ice was no longer there!
Here is a similar paper on atmospheric dipoles as they relate to global warming. Dipoles are naturally occurring atmospheric pressure generated gyre/cyclonic phenomenon that arise when adjoining oceanic SST temps are opposite one another. IE a warm pool is adjacent to a cool pool. The Arctic dipole sets up when the North Atlantic is warm and the North Pacific is cool. So far, when observations extend beyond 50 years, these dipoles, wherever they occur, appear unaffected by global warming and some models, depending on how they are constructed, mimic that result. Might it be that greenhouse gasses are unable to change sea surface temperatures (the cause of dipoles), as this science blog has reported all along?
http://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/cms-filesystem-action/user_files/gav/publications/zxvlh_09_iodgw.pdf
Pips Ice DISPLACEMENT ! Look at the Differences: Strong Clockwise Flow June 25, changes to Random & almost no velocity July 9, but by now may be sorting out almost to CONTERclockwise:
http://www7320.nrlssc.navy.mil/pips2/archive/retrievepic.html?filetype=Displacement&year=2010&month=6&day=25
(just subtitute day & month e.g at the end 7 & 11 for 6 & 25).
This may be the La Nina AIR patterns kicking in – – I think the earlier slow-down followed by no-motion was the End of the El Nino.
R. Gates is quite perspicatious: the area between 90 & 120 degrees East (off Central Siberia) seems ready to dissappear right up to about 200 miles short of the Pole. Meanwhile that “swinging scythe” of heavy Ice has stalled more-or-less across the area warmed by the Open Lane in 2007.
From my point of view this opens up a Unique danger:
In 2007 a ridge of ice just East of that, kept the 40 degree (F) water away from the terminus of the Gulf Stream: this time the Warm current may be heading right into an area WARMER THAN IT IS, as much as 50 degrees (F) – – that would REVERSE IT, even if 75% of the Basin remains Ice-bound.
… 300 mph winds is what I fear, & I had so hoped the Threat was shrinking.
Instead it is just changing.
… And … The Arctic’s Meteorologist’s idea of the La Nina leading to Clear Skies – – that could be a month away or, if Less – – it could hardly come at a WORSE time.
Note that the possibly soon-to-disintegrate area – – is the part towards Europe, that is: the part covered with BLACK DIESEL SOOT FROM EUROPEAN DIESELS “forgiven” their Soot by the wacky argument that they reduce CO2 slightly – – when the soot is 1000s of times more dangerous & the USA has cut diesel soot 93% on engines built since 1995.
Charles, take a breath. This is just cerebral discussions. But if you insist on panic, Charles, by all means, get a family burial plot, for the world will all end soon. Geesh. What do you normally do when you find you have not enough syrup for your pancakes???
charles wilson says:
July 10, 2010 at 1:35 pm
“[…]Note that the possibly soon-to-disintegrate area – – is the part towards Europe, that is: the part covered with BLACK DIESEL SOOT FROM EUROPEAN DIESELS […]”
Yeah, Charles, your medication is in the fridge, ok, open the door, there’s the pill box, ok, now take one, and some tap water, and just down it, o.k.?
Hey: the (fake, European) Environmentalists are KILLING THE WORLD
(well, IF the Ocean currents are similar enough to 10,000 years ago to do the same thing as then).
They obviously feel the Recent Global Cooling (as the Global/Pacific 60-year Cycle turns over to its Cooling Half), means they have to ACTIVELY raise the Temp, to keep their $100 Billion a year in Tax -subsidies SCAM, called Kyoto.
>> Suppress the Global Cooler, Sulfur.
>> Increase ” Evil BLACK Carbon ” aka Soot
— and the effects of both are Vastly amplified in the Arctic
We are in a WAR.
– – – -so the Right Wing will do nothing about it ?
Because it’s like, against some Voodoo, inate, Instinct/Feeling … that there are never Any problems ?
Who are you – – Neville Chamberlain ?
For gosh sakes: look at the Pips charts over the last week.
It’s like someone is pouring paint thinner on that half-million square km patch
– – it fades more & more every day.
However, on a more Hopefull side, 2007 extent may regain the lead from 2010 tomorrow:
Comparing _____2007___ to___ 2010
Ahead June 30____xxx______by 569,532 km2
Ahead July 9 _____xxx______by 44,219
Change:
July 7-8 ___ – 74,844 ____ – 33,125 km2
July 8-9 ___ – 85,937 ____ – 71,094
July 9-10 __ – 135.157 ____ ? ?
July10-11 __ – 106.750 ____ ? ?
http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/seaice/extent/plot.csv
If anyone has another site that gives Numeric Data: please share.
However, on a more Hopefull side, 2007 extent just regained the lead from 2010:
Comparing _____2007___ to___ 2010
Ahead June 30____ no______by 569,532 km2
Ahead July 10___by 24,688______ no____
Change:
July 7-8 ___ – 74,844 ____ – 33,125 km2
July 8-9 ___ – 85,937 ____ – 71,094
July 9-10 __ – 135.157 ____ – 66,250
July10-11 __ – 106.750 ____ ? ?
http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/seaice/extent/plot.csv
If anyone has another site that gives Numeric Data: please share.
Pamela Gray says:
July 9, 2010 at 6:05 pm
Gates is the one that believes CO2 increases can affect the dipole. It will be up to him to explain how he thinks that happens. In the meantime, both the North Atlantic Oscillation and the Arctic Oscillation figure into the phenomenon called the Arctic Dipole. Read Polyakov’s article for starters. Then we can discuss what the dipole is, where it usually occurs, and how it contributes to melt when other oscillations are in sync with it.
_______________
Pamela,
I’ve posted numerous links to scientific studies about the Arctic Dipole Anomaly, and a quick Google of the topic reveals a treasure trove of information. I would leave it up to WUWT readers to do their own reading, rather than me prattle on any more about the DA. It’s signficant enough of an effect that the NSIDC mentions it in their latest monthly report, and it seems to be an effect that was not predicted by GCM’s. Yes, meridonal wind patterns and Arctic Dipoles have set up over the Arctic in the past, they were very rare– hence the term “anomaly”. What is quite clear is that the DA is increasing in frequency and seems to be self-sustaining through positive feedback. This is what one would expect from a chaotic oscillating attractor. It begins as an anomaly and then through positive feedback, creates the very conditions that ensure it will occur with more and more frequency. This link that I’ve given before give a lot of great information on this feedback:
http://www.arctic.noaa.gov/reportcard/atmosphere.html
Not only does the DA create the atmospheric pressure conditions that create more warming in the Arctic, these meridonal winds that are associated with the DA flush larger amounts of ice out of the Arctic instead of cycling it back into the gyre.
The increasing frequency of the DA is one of the most signifcant meteorological events in the Arctic over the past few years, and I think you’d find few Arctic weather and climate experts who’d disagree with this statement. To suggest that it the increasing frequency of the DA is “business as usual” for the Arctic is misleading at best.
From: Phil. on July 9, 2010 at 9:23 pm
So when experts set up an automated system to do a job, the system’s results are not their work and they have no responsibility for the outcome? This concept would work well in medicine. “We’re sorry ma’am, but the machine failed to notice the change in your husband’s condition and administer the proper medicines to save him. Since the machine was at fault the staff and hospital are thus blameless therefore you have no grounds for legal action against us.”
Phil-dot, will you get a freaking clue already about what your problem is? You keep coming off as that oblivious self-absorbed abusive professor everybody hates and you treat Steve worse than a freshman. ‘You are wrong Goddard! You are wrong again, Goddard! You are always wrong, Goddard! Why couldn’t you find the answer in that 500 page reference book I told you to read last night, Goddard?! It’s clearly in there, Goddard! Why can’t you just accept my obvious superiority, Goddard?! Can’t you tell that I’m always right and you’re always wrong, Goddard?!’
Bud, I have learned to shrug off a lot of abuse in my life. I’m a pretty easygoing fellow. But if you were standing in front of me pulling the same cr** you do to Steve all the time, I’d be really tempted to take a swing at you. Most likely I’d call security or the cops to get this raving lunatic out of my face before I give in and take you down. Don’t you know as an adult how to talk to other adults? Here you are whining because Steve doesn’t carefully examine every piece of “evidence” you throw at him and give you long thoughtful replies. You’re complaining he gives you short dismissive “whatever” replies, and I’m amazed he even bothers at all.
Look what you just did in your post. You quoted Steve as saying: “The satellite photos which I already provided you from July 1-July 4 show no change in the ice.” Then you say: “Of course he was unable (or unwilling) to give the date and time for those images…” He just told you the dates, again, and you slandered him. You slander him, accuse him of hoaxes and lying, show him no respect, and still insist he should give thoughtful consideration to your histrionic rants.
Wake up and smell the coffee, Phil-dot of website http://deleted/. And that ain’t no decaf either, sunshine.
Yes I did, that is I think I did if I accept you don’t know the correct definition and usage of “deigned” and consider “deigned to chip” to actually mean “decided to chip in.” Otherwise what you said doesn’t make sense.
One, my comment relayed what the researchers noted about that ice on June 14. As I said at that other post, “Thus about three weeks ago the ice was observed at that point to be of better quality than last year.” And it lasted until July 9, after the thing at NARL on July 4, and that chunk near Barrow giving way on June 25? That must have been some pretty good ice!
Two, you can call up satellite images yet couldn’t verify for yourself that Steve’s satellite images were from July 1 to 4 just as he said?
Stop right there. Steve thought the ice was good, I thought the ice was good. We both were going by the site data, Steve was also looking at the satellite imagery. Why did you feel the need to ascribe the motive “reassurance” to a simple agreeing?
Phil-dot, I’ve actually looked at the July 4 archived webcam images, all 400+ of them, and on dial up it took a while to download the set. Eventually, yes, despite the fog, you do see lots of ice moving. But it moves left to right. Per the webcam site “The camera is looking approximately NNW.” So I’m looking at ice moving from roughly the south to the north. NARL is north of Barrow. Thus far as I can tell, the webcam on July 4 is showing some ice had broken up south of Barrow and was moving northward, not that the ice at NARL had broken up. Thus to me what you cite as “evidence” is lacking.