Note: I second Steve’s thanks below to Dr. Meier for his essays (part1 and part 2) that enable us to have this discussion.
Back on Feb 9th, 2010 WUWT readers polled that Arctic sea ice would be recovering over 2009, by a wide margin of 69.8%. We’ll see how that pans out this year. We did pretty well last year.
As leader of the WUWT “Ice Team”, I’ll ask that when the time comes, that we all scream for the Ice Team that comes closest to predicting the actual the Arctic Sea Ice minimum, then buy the other team a beer.
The next few weeks will be entertaining, perhaps even stressful, as we watch each twist and turn in agonizing slow motion. But, let’s all take it in stride, no matter who “augers in”, may the best team win. 😉
– Anthony
By Steve Goddard
First, thanks to Dr. Walt Meier at NSIDC for taking the time to write up his very informative recent article on WUWT. It is much appreciated. In that article, Dr. Meier made this statement :
As NSIDC states in its most recent post, we’ve expected we may see the rapid decline begin to slow because the melt will soon run into older, thicker ice, which will slow the loss of ice. Steve has said essentially the same thing and indeed we’ve the rate of loss slow over the past few days.
The NSIDC newsletter which Dr. Meier refers to is dated July 6, 2010.
However, it would not be surprising to see the rate of ice loss slow in coming weeks as the melt process starts to encounter thicker, second and third year ice in the central Arctic Ocean. Loss of ice has already slowed in the Beaufort and Chukchi Seas due to the tongue of thicker, older ice in the region noted in our April update.
Note that the slowdown actually started a few days before NSIDC published their forecast for it. NSIDC only produces one newsletter per month, so this may just be a matter of timing.
By contrast, my forecast came three days ahead of the slowdown and was very precise.
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.
NSIDC also noted in their July 6 newsletter the possible similarity between 2006 and 2010.
Weather conditions, atmospheric patterns, and cloud cover over the next month will play a major role in determining whether the 2010 sea ice decline tracks at a level similar to 2007, or more like 2006. Although ice extent was greater in June 2007 than June 2006, in July 2007 the ice loss rate accelerated. That fast decline led up to the record low ice extent of September 2007.
By contrast, I clearly noted the similarity to 2006 over six weeks ago – at a time when the extent graphs showed 2010 far below 2006. My observation was made based on PIPS thickness data, which allowed me to make a very early prediction.
Can we find another year with similar ice distribution as 2010? I can see Russian ice in my Windows. Note in the graph below that 2010 is very similar to 2006.
Bookmark this post for reference in September.
June 1, 2006
June 1, 2010
Six weeks later, 2010 extent is very close to 2006 – just as the PIPS data indicated it should be. It is important to note that whether or not PIPS thicknesses have correct absolute values, I am only using it for comparisons relative to other years. The absolute thicknesses are not important – as long as their methodology is consistent from year to year.
‘
Conclusion : The PIPS thickness data has been an extremely good indicator of 2010 Arctic ice conditions. Thanks to reliance on PIPS data, WUWT has been far ahead of the curve in forecasting future 2010 ice conditions.
Coincidence? Not very likely. Theory is fine, but it is difficult to argue with results.
Hah, another week of this and my 6.0-6.2M km/2 predicted in early April (or maybe late March) will start looking better again. 🙂
But I think I agree with the general thrust of Anthony’s intro –it ain’t over till the Fat Lady sings, and she takes forever doing her warmups.
Personally, I intend to try hard to be cheerful and conciliatory in post-analysis whichever end of the stick I end up on that third week in September.
Good report Steve. The thicker multi-year ice makes sense as a leading indicator.
Putting a graph of june 1st beside a graph dated july 14th .. That article was too correctly scientific, you had to twist it.
If you have the time, just go to Modis satellite images and take a good look at the actual condition of the ”thick” ice. It’s all breaking apart. And the ice blocks (iceberg or else) are floating away. With the current giration and winds (not to account the very warm temps), don’t sing to loud as you might be in for a surprise. Beating 2007 is senseless. Being at one of the lowest level – that is showing a trend and not a recovery one.
Thanks to Dr. Meier for once again having the willingness to venture into the lion’s den, and for providing posts which, though I don’t always agree with them, do provide a clear, articulate, and understandable depiction of a view from the AGW which I suspect many here will concede is not that far from their own views.
Congratulations also to Anthony. One of the leading reasons I believe that this site is closing in on 50 million hits is that you have been willing and able to recruit and offer presentations from across the spectrum of this debate and to maintain a forum where they can discussed contentiously but mostly without acrimony. It’s a bit sad that this site is such a rarity in that regard, but it is a credit to your personal decency that so many who often disagree with most of your visitors are willing to take the step of exposing their opinions here. I know the amount of abuse and defamation you are exposed to due to your stance on these matters is beyond what I, or probably most of the others here, could imagine enduring, but I think you should take a good deal of reassurance from the fact that so many feel comfortable appearing here and putting their views on the line. The people who seem to really care about discovering the truth in this debate know who you are and, as I do, deeply respect your tireless efforts and honesty. Thanks again for all you do.
REPLY: Thank you Dave, most sincerely. -Anthony
“If you have the time, just go to Modis satellite images and take a good look at the actual condition of the ”thick” ice. It’s all breaking apart. And the ice blocks (iceberg or else) are floating away. With the current giration and winds (not to account the very warm temps), don’t sing to loud as you might be in for a surprise. Beating 2007 is senseless. Being at one of the lowest level – that is showing a trend and not a recovery one.”
Thank you Captain Obvious, I think it was stated in this article “it ain’t over until its over” and you post here “you may be in a for a surprise.”…WOW, I hadn’t thought of that after reading the article! Captain Obvious strikes again folks!
And yes, they talked about how weather influences this as well, and talked about why they used the charts they did. Any other blaringly obvious posts you want to make? I am on a role, and my six shooters full.
Dave Wendt says:
July 14, 2010 at 5:09 pm
I absolutely agree!!!
Some of us posters, readers, doctors, researchers, etc. are advancing in science even though hurdles and barriers challenge the way.
Regg
It is called prediction, followed by verification of the prediction. That is what we do in science.
DMI shows a cooler than normal pole-how does that translate to warm?
Regg,
My forecast is JAXA 5.5 million km^2 for the minimum.
What is your prediction?
Stevengoddard writes:
“Six weeks later, 2010 extent is very close to 2006 – just as the PIPS data indicated it should be.”
Yes, you are presenting good evidence that PIPS data is a very good indicator of melt time. That is an important achievement and you can be proud of it. But leave it there. Please don’t say that you predicted the melt time. If you predicted it, then you should have some confirmed hypotheses about melt time which explain how you go about predicting melt times. But your explanation is that you have discovered that PIPS data is a good indicator. Let us embrace humility and be an example to the world.
I am confidently predicting a normal ice minima (or at least 1SD) for NH ice this summer based on sea ice concentrations succintly visualized by CT and SGoddard up to this date. This of course will seem complete off the planet by most but LOL anyway. I am also predicting that the next 6 months will mark the end of the AGW theory based solely on meteoriological data
Steve, while I tend to side with you on the ice discussion, simply saying the same thing, a little louder, is perhaps not the best way to “win”.
Why do you think the tools you use are better? What do you disagree with in Meier’s evaluation and why? I mean, Meier basically said in the nicest way possible that you don’t know what you’re talking about. Surely you can address those points?
I agree though, the proof is in the pudding. If you “win” the extent prediction, that is awfully hard to argue with. Good luck!
By contrast, my forecast came three days ahead of the slowdown and was very precise.
Steven, I’m still really curious. On what was your forecast based?
The whole dialogue about ice melt in the Arctic, both recent and in the distant past, calls to my mind an image: Knights jousting on icebergs. The Knights are clad in the heavy armor of “their science”, impenetrable, protective, expensive, and can fit just one Mann at a time. Their steeds, or in this case, supporting scientistis, are bred for bearing heavy weights and to charge straight ahead, incapable of moving from side to side, as in lacking flexiblility, when conditions warrant. Their lances are pointed to enemies both real and imagined. Their shields at the ready to deflect any and all blows. In the beginning, the landscape was desolate and as far as the eye could see. And, with the warmth of enlightenment, the solid ice begins to crack in huge chunks and proceed in a Southernly direction, each ice sheet becoming somewhat smaller and smaller. Undetered, the Knights joust, amongst themselves at times, but more often with footman who seek to usurp their iceberg. More than jousting however, the Knights bellow at adversaries across an increasing gulf created by a gently warming current of skeptical interest on a Southern route, towards a more middle or equitorial location, that will diminish their territory, and, in the end, their existence. My image is neither a wish nor a prophesy, just an image of the passage of an idea, from whence it came, to where it is, to where it is going.
That daring young man
On the flying Serreze.
Quick, go find a net.
==========
There’s a good chance that all the remaining ice is “rotten” and will melt off in very quick fashion the next 6 weeks. If it doesn’t, then the long term trend is still down.
Meanwhile, Alberta just got a nice July snowstorm: http://bit.ly/aog95c
Anthony, you said;
“As leader of the WUWT “Ice Team”, I’ll ask that when the time comes, that we all scream for the Ice Team that comes closest to predicting the actual the Arctic Sea Ice minimum, then buy the other team a beer.”
Well I’ll drink to that…. UNLESS….. you’re gonna let Willis pick the beer. I say this because he seems to think, for some unknown reason, that Corona is actually BEER. LOL
I’m in for 6m km2.
I view this on the level of the breakup contest for the Yukon. Good sporting fun.
But where does it leave the Polar Bears?
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/environment/news/article.cfm?c_id=39&objectid=10658955
“Canadian biologists say polar bears in the Hudson Bay area of Canada are slowly but steadily dying out.
Canadian biologists say polar bears in the Hudson Bay area of Canada are slowly but steadily dying out.
Polar bears in the Hudson Bay area of Canada are likely to die out in the next three decades, possibly sooner, as global warming melts more Arctic ice and thus reduces their hunting opportunities, according to Canadian biologists.
The animals in western Hudson Bay, one of 19 discrete sub-populations of the species around the Arctic, are losing fat and body mass as their time on the floating sea ice gets shorter and shorter, according to the researchers from the University of Alberta.”
It gets silly after those paragraphs.
“If the decline in the sea ice continues – as predictions of global warming suggest it will – it is feared that the bears could die out in 25 to 30 years, or perhaps in as few as 10, if there are a succession of years with very low sea ice cover”
MattN
The only thing that is going to “win” is a correct forecast. I am just setting the record straight and detailing my methodology.
Günther
The sharp decline in June was due to areas outside of the Arctic Basin (like the Hudson Bay) melting out. It became clear at the end of June that Hudson Bay would be clear of ice on July 1, and that there was almost no thin ice left to melt anywhere. As a result, ice loss came to nearly a hard stop on July 1.
At some point later in July, it will probably start to pick up again.
Günther
BTW – I knew that there was almost no thin ice left at the end of June, because of PIPS.
Well, the JAXA data for the 14th is now up and its another “huge” 43,000 sq km loss, making the average for the first 2 weeks in July approx 55,000 sq km per day.
Incidentally, the first 2 weeks of July 2006 averaged over 83,000 sq km per day (although it did slow to about 63,000 sq km during the latter part of the month). Not sure how accurate the comparison tool on Cyrosphere Today is, but when compring July 12th 2006 with this year, it appears the ice concentration is much greater in the Arctic Basin this year.
Does this perhaps have any bearing on the slower rate of loss now the majority of ice outside the basin is already gone? And what does this mean for the remainder of the melt season?
Perhaps the most startling difference to me is whereas at 27th June this years ice extent was 618,000 sq km below the 2007 figure and guys like Anu were preparing to have their summer vacation at the North Pole, just 17 days later the difference is 300,000 sq km the other way (2010 above 2007). Thats some turnaround and goes to illustrate how quickly things can change.
I wonder where Anu is btw. Haven’t seen him post for a couple of weeks?
The preliminary JAXA number is in for 7/14/2010 — 8087344. We only had 43.6k sq-km melt today. The final number usually shows the Arctic Sea ice significantly higher, so expect the final melt to be in the 30’s. This continues the slow melt trend of the last week.
http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/seaice/extent/plot.csv