by Steve Goddard
In April, I pointed out that PIOMAS forecasts for the summer didn’t make much sense.
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.
It is now early August. Let us see how they did. They expected most of the ice to be gone in the Beaufort Sea by now, and much of the remaining ice to be very thin.
The most recent NSIDC newsletter included this map, showing that the thick multi-year ice is still present in the Beaufort Sea. This is in stark contrast to the PIOMAS prediction of thin ice in that region.
The image below shows in red where PIOMAS mispredicted the ice edge vs. NSIDC August 6 map. Green indicates areas where they overestimated the amount of ice.
This discrepancy will get worse through the remainder of the month. PIOMAS extent/thickness predictions are way off the mark, and their volume calculations are much too low.
As I forecast last week, DMI now shows 2010 ice extent highest since 2006.
Ice thickness remains between 2009 and 2006, just as PIPS data indicated it should back in May.
JAXA shows that divergence from 2007 continues steadily, and is now in excess of 700,000 km².
The JAXA area graph show that ice melt has dropped off dramatically.
NSIDC maps show little ice loss so far this month. There has been nearly as much gain (green) as loss (red.)
NCEP forecasts generally below normal temperatures for the next two weeks in the Arctic.
DMI shows that summer is just about done north of 80N, and has been the coldest on record (for that dataset starting in 1958). Average temperatures have fallen below freezing there.
Conclusion : There will probably be minimal ice loss during August. The minimum is likely to be the highest since 2006, and possibly higher than 2005. So far, my forecast of 5.5 million km² is looking very conservative. Ice extent is higher than I predicted for early August.
Meanwhile, down south. Antarctica continues gaining ice at a record pace. NSIDC showed it the highest on record for July.
Bremen shows it likely headed for a new record.
In Greenland, we are bombarded with stories about “losing Manhattan sized chunks of ice.” The BBC made it one of their lead stories yesterday. Yet the ice isn’t lost and the Greenland ice sheet has been having an exceptionally cold summer, as seen in the NOAA anomaly animation below.
Perhaps “some scientists” might want to actually check the Greenland temperature data before talking to the press? Under any circumstances, how would “abnormally warm” temperatures cause a 700 foot thick block of ice to fracture? The concept doesn’t make much sense from from an engineering point of view. A few months of (imagined) warm temperatures might cause a little surface melt, but the thermal conductivity of ice is much too low to alter the temperature and material strength of ice more than a few feet below the surface. I had this same discussion with Ted Scambos at NSIDC a few years ago about Antarctic Peninsula ice shelves.
The whole story is a complete ruse.
We are bombarded with misinformation about the state of polar ice. People’s brains have been programmed to believe that the last few ppm of CO2 have made a huge difference in the behaviour of the ice, and that belief makes their thought process irrational. People will find what they expect to find. It is human nature.
From: R. Gates on August 8, 2010 at 5:19 pm
I want the ice cubes in my freezer to not melt. Do I analyze the difference in temperature from the average temp last year, or do I simply check the current temperature reading of the thermometer inside?
Really, you’re just complicating the issue needlessly.
Any volunteers to go to squeege the pole cam?
http://psc.apl.washington.edu/northpole/webphotos/noaa2.jpg
Looks like the north pole cam shows snow covering up that ice pond!
Sean Peake says:
August 9, 2010 at 1:55 pm
And what temperature does GISS claim the pole is right now? If it’s >0 C, then clearly the picture (data) is wrong, as the extrapolation model has to be correct.
Has anyone else noted that the flow of sea ice out through the Fram came to close to a complete halt about 3 weeks ago
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/CT/animate.arctic.color.4.html
The flow out the Fram tends to dwindle during each melt season but, to my eye at least, it has tended to bottom out later and less completely in most other years. Usually closer to the minimum.
I remember FORTRAN punch cards. Thats what there was when I learned FORTRAN. I do not miss the cards, but I learned a Lot. (Back in the sixties) Then I was an instructor for a long time in electronics.
Thanks WUWT. Your effect on the world will go a long way toward saving sanity.
Al Cooper
I learned a lot from Fortran punch cards, like to be careful not to drop your deck.
JER0ME,
That is certainly an interesting insight into the mirror image dilemma that you sceptics have. 🙂
DavidW,
My advice is that it is always best to take a charitable view of your opponents and assume that they – while being completely wrong, of course – have good intentions. I do not always manage to follow this advice myself, unfortunately, but I still think that it is the best policy.
Steve,
2007 had record low extent due to compacted ice. Do you think there is now more ice because it is not compacted?
Check the satellite pictures, every black or grey pixel equals 1 square kilometer open water and the extent counts them as ice.
http://exploreourpla.net/explorer/?map=Arc&sat=ter&lvl=7&lat=85&lon=-170&yir=2010&dag=220
Your assertions are based on water.
noiv,
There is something very interesting in that satellite image. The leads are freezing up several weeks early this year.
kadaka (KD Knoebel) says:
August 9, 2010 at 10:42 am
From: R. Gates on August 8, 2010 at 5:19 pm
There was no “trick” involved in looking at an anomaly map. It is the only thing that can tell you if things are warmer or colder than average. The best chart, for example, that you can currently look at to give you the long term sense for what is going on in the Arctic sea ice is the long term anomaly chart:
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/sea.ice.anomaly.timeseries.jpg
This tape is the closest thing we have to a “heartbeat” of the Arctic, and there is no “trick” to using it to tell a great deal.
We’re talking specifically about the Arctic, and you whip out a “Northern Hemisphere Sea Ice Anomaly” chart, which could include ice off the coast of New Jersey as that’s in the Northern Hemisphere.
Tricky!
______
Hmmm…ice off the coast of New Jersey?
Well, again, I guess we just disagree then, because the chart is the best resource you can have to get a pulse for the long term trends of Arctic Sea ice, but if you’d rather look at something else, like pictures of submarines coming up in open water that happens all the time in the Arctic, then have it my friend.
R Gates: you have told us that the water temperature in the Arctic are warm and this will make the ice continue to melt even if the air temperatures in the region are below freezing. That seems a common sense statement.
Where did the heat in the water come from; was it transported from southern oceans, maybe with the Gulf Stream or did the Arctic sun heat it up? I would guess the heat is transported northwards from areas where the sun intensity is stronger?
If this is correct then the volume of the ice melt is really more related to what the ocean currents are doing during any one year and how much heat is transported northwards than polar temperatures? If this is the line to be taken then it really is pointless to point to variations of the ice levels (thickness or extent, which ever measurement you choose) as being a reliable barometer of global warming or warmer Arctic air temperatures (which seems to be one of the big conclusions in AGW models). From this point of view ice levels are mostly related to ocean current which might be called “ocean weather”?
Is that an argument you are making?
Julian in Wales says:
August 9, 2010 at 7:07 pm
R Gates: you have told us that the water temperature in the Arctic are warm and this will make the ice continue to melt even if the air temperatures in the region are below freezing. That seems a common sense statement.
Where did the heat in the water come from; was it transported from southern oceans, maybe with the Gulf Stream or did the Arctic sun heat it up? I would guess the heat is transported northwards from areas where the sun intensity is stronger?
If this is correct then the volume of the ice melt is really more related to what the ocean currents are doing during any one year and how much heat is transported northwards than polar temperatures? If this is the line to be taken then it really is pointless to point to variations of the ice levels (thickness or extent, which ever measurement you choose) as being a reliable barometer of global warming or warmer Arctic air temperatures (which seems to be one of the big conclusions in AGW models). From this point of view ice levels are mostly related to ocean current which might be called “ocean weather”?
Is that an argument you are making?
_______
There is some influx of heat from both the Atlantic and from the Pacific currents that come into the Arctic, and we know that the N. Atlantic, especially around Greenland has been warmer than normal since last winter, and so certainly some of this heat could have made it’s way into the higher Arctic, but the primary source of heat came from solar insolation earlier in the summer. May and June’s melt opened up water that received a good dose of sunlight just as the sun was reaching its highest point in the Arctic sky. This combined with some influx and higher than normal air temps in the early season brought about the warmer than normal water.
The Arctic air right now (in some areas) may even be a bit cooler than normal, but not dramatically so. But the air temps are not as critical right now as the water temps and the diverged ice that has spread out into the warmer waters. This lower concentration ice is melting as we speak (despite those who would lead you to believe that the melt has stopped). Here’s the key point: Diverged ice (ice that has spread) makes the extent decline appear to slow, but it doesn’t slow the melt, but if anything, actually increases the melt as there is more surface area of the ice in contact with the open water. The extent decline slow down does not mean a melt slow down necessarily– you have to take divergence into account before making that determination. The only way we’ll really eventually have an accurate determination of real melt rates is when we have a true 3-D perspective of the ice, that can be updated on a regular basis. Then when we get spreading, we can still look at total area times thickness, and see what the volume is doing. This is one reason that I look forward to CryoSat 2 data, besides the fact that it will offer some amazing graphical looks at the ice.
Julian in Wales,
And the temperature of these currents has, of course, no relation to the overall temperature of the earth …
PIOMAS is checked with LASERs. ICESAT got a TRUE VOLUME and it was BELOW PIOMAS.
PI-AS. was developed by the same people as PIps2. Zhang was co-author of Pips 3.0 !
… the “AS” in PIOMAS is ASSIMILATION & it is Pips 2 PLUS:
Buoys, ships, planes that actually MEASURE Ice thickness.
The 1 disagreement with the Laser Sat was 2007 – – because PIOMAS had no measurement from the Center.
Too far from Land — except 2008-to-May 30 this year, when Icebridge planes lasered the whole Ocean.
Basically ALL the OTHER indexes take the “broad-swath” Satellites which measure reflected IR or MW & get a RELATIVE CONCENTRATION.
RELATIVE
If Winter spreads out 1 foot of Ice, or 20 feet thickness … PIPS 2.0 will SHOW THE SAME – – an ASSUMED Thickness, modified by seasonal averages, for the whole Arctic — then where CONCENTRATION is High, they make it thicker THAN AVERAGE.
Do they MEASURE the Average ??
NO.
The Lasers measure it all, Pips MEASURES THICKNESS NOT AT ALL. Nor do JAXA, NSIDC, DMI, etc.
Piomas … adds Any measurement it can get, but that is VERY SPOTTY. Right now, you cannot trust it . But for the past, both hundreds of Sub tracks’ average, & the Laser sats, confirmed it as EXCELLENT – – except for 1 situation — which is the same one we are in now (maybe).
What really disturbs me is the LOW is gone, High Pressure Rules – – and the Clouds ARE STILL THERE.
I was expecting a “Cascade Melt” & it looks like the 9-week Enso Time Lag, as opposed to the 6-week Cold Tongue Index, will set when we get Clear Skies. And that is just too late (Well: Yippeee! I really did not WANT 300 mph winds ! ) … although the 10-day forecast — click N. Hemis(phere) at http://www.wetterzentrale.de/topkarten/fsecmeur.html
– – implies a Wild storm & thus MASSIVE Fram outflow – – as the Big Low returns (but that means Clouds, so any apparent extent “gain” is not really a melting). Update after JAXA:
Comparing _______2007___ to___ 2010_____&____2009__
Ahead June 28______ no________ 679,531 Sq.Km___no__
Ahead Aug8____+753,437=15days__no___________no__
(2009 now -164,219 behind = 4 days)
OCEAN CURRENT STOP: RISK : net -3.5% = 6.5 % … and under 2% if the clouds hold.
Daily: ___________2007___ to___ 2010_____&____2009__
Aug 7-8________- 75,625 _____ – 50,313 ___(-43,281)
Aug 8-9________- 83,750 _____ – PIOMAS is checked with LASERs. ICESAT got a TRUE VOLUME and it was BELOW PIOMAS.
P. was developed by the same people. Zhang was co-author of Pips 3.0 !
… the “AS” in PIOMAS is ASSIMILATION & it is Pips 2 PLUS:
Buoys, ships, planes that actually MEASURE Ice thickness.
The 1 disagreement with the Laser Sat was 2007 – – because PIOMAS had no measurement from the Center.
Too far from Land — except 2008-to-2010: May 30, when Icebridge planes lasered the whole Ocean.
TYpu see basically ALL measures take the “broad-swath Satellites which measure what is being reflected & get a RELATIVE CONCENTRATION.
RELATIVE. If Winter spreads out 1 foot of Ice or 20, PIPS 2.0 will READ THE SAME – – and ASSUMED Thickness, modified by seasonal averages, for the whole Arctic — then where CONCENTRATION is High, they make it thicker THAN AVERAGE.
Do they MEASURE the Average ??
NO.
The Lasers measure it all, Pips MEASURES NO THICKNESS AT ALL, as JAXA, NSIDC, etc. Piomas … gets any measurement made, but that is VERY SPOTTY. Right now, you cannot trust it . But for the past, both hundreds of Sub tracks’ average, & the Laser sats, confirmed it as EXCELLENT – – except for 1 situation — which is the same one we are in now (maybe).
What really disturbs me is the LOW is gone, High Pressure Rules – – and the Clouds ARE STILL THERE.
I was expecting a “Cascade Melt” & it looks like the 9-week Enso Delay, as opposed to the 6-week Cold Tongue Index, will be the return of CLear Skies. And that is just too late. although the 10-day forecast — click N. Hemis(phere) at http://www.wetterzentrale.de/topkarten/fsecmeur.html
– – implies a Wild storm & MASSIVE Fram outflow – – as the Big Low returns (but that means Clouds).
Comparing _______2007___ to___ 2010_____&____2009__
Ahead June 28______ no________ 679,531 Sq.Km___no__
Ahead Aug 8____+753,437=15days____no__________no__
(2009 now -164,219 behind = 4 days)
OCEAN CURRENT STOP: RISK : net -3.5% = 6.5 % … and under 2% if the clouds hold 2 more weeks*.
Daily: ___________2007___ to___ 2010_____&____2009__
Aug 7-8________- 75,625 _____ – 50,313 _______(-43,281)
Aug 8-9________- 83,750 _____ – 76,094prelim.__(-35,000)
Aug 9-10_______ -37,500 _____ – ?___ ? _______(-45,819)
* minus .1% if under 150K ice loss, .2 under 100K, .4% under 50K// if Over 150K: Add.
But the air temps are not as critical right now as the water temps and the diverged ice that has spread out into the warmer waters. This lower concentration ice is melting as we speak (despite those who would lead you to believe that the melt has stopped). Here’s the key point: Diverged ice (ice that has spread) makes the extent decline appear to slow, but it doesn’t slow the melt, but if anything, actually increases the melt as there is more surface area of the ice in contact with the open water.
Charles Wilson
How is your 1 million km2 forecast working out?
R. Gates: August 9, 2010 at 7:44 pm
Diverged ice (ice that has spread) makes the extent decline appear to slow, but it doesn’t slow the melt, but if anything, actually increases the melt as there is more surface area of the ice in contact with the open water.
You have two ice cubes in a bowl, six inches apart. Now you move them six inches farther apart (you have a *large* bowl) and have therefore increased their divergence, but you have not increased their surface area in contact with the water.
stevengoddard says:
August 8, 2010 at 6:10 pm
Nightvid Cole
Why is concrete much stronger than cement by itself?
___________________________________
Steven Goddard,
Why won’t a rubber balloon with even a few small holes hold air for even a few minutes?
Seriously, let’s not become famous for our abuse of unthinkably bizarre analogies!
Steve,
you may want to use the infrared bands and learn to distinguish thin clouds from ice:
http://exploreourpla.net/explorer/?map=Arc&sat=367&lvl=7&lat=76&lon=-155&yir=2010&dag=220
noiv: August 10, 2010 at 5:59 am
Steve,
you may want to use the infrared bands and learn to distinguish thin clouds from ice
Here’s a better one for that — it’s actually over the pole, and not in the middle of the Beaufort Gyre:
http://exploreourpla.net/explorer/?map=Arc&sat=ter&lon=0&lat=89,9&lvl=4&yir=2010&dag=221
Bill Tuttle says:
August 10, 2010 at 1:39 am
R. Gates: August 9, 2010 at 7:44 pm
Diverged ice (ice that has spread) makes the extent decline appear to slow, but it doesn’t slow the melt, but if anything, actually increases the melt as there is more surface area of the ice in contact with the open water.
You have two ice cubes in a bowl, six inches apart. Now you move them six inches farther apart (you have a *large* bowl) and have therefore increased their divergence, but you have not increased their surface area in contact with the water.
______
This is not exactly an appropriate analogy to what happens with divergence. You have one solid piece of ice floating in a bowl of water. Spread that ice into 4 smaller pieces and see how much more actual ice is in contact with the water. In reality, what happens with diverging sea ice is somewhere in between the example you gave and my illustration. Pieces both spread out as well as break up, opening up places to have more contact with water. Added to this is the fact that the diverging tends to go more south where the water is even warmer. Remember my whole point here it that simply looking at a slow down in the sea ice extent drop is not necessarily a good indicator that the melt has slowed down. Certain times of the year, especially when the ice is diverging, it a bad time to think the slowdown in the extent drop is sign the melt has slowed. Steve has equated a slowdown in the the extent drop with a slowdown in the melt, with no evidence that is an accurate guage.
This most recent update to sea surface temps in the Arctic tells you that there’s plenty of warmth left in the water (lots higher than normal areas) to melt the ice.
http://polar.ncep.noaa.gov/sst/ophi/color_anomaly_NPS_ophi0.png
R. Gates: August 10, 2010 at 7:43 am
This most recent update to sea surface temps in the Arctic tells you that there’s plenty of warmth left in the water (lots higher than normal areas) to melt the ice.
That’s the anomaly chart. Anomalies don’t melt ice, warmth does, and according to the sea *temperature* chart, it’s downright *cold* up there…
http://polar.ncep.noaa.gov/sst/ophi/color_sst_NW_ophi0.png
Bill Tuttle says:
August 10, 2010 at 8:31 am
R. Gates: August 10, 2010 at 7:43 am
This most recent update to sea surface temps in the Arctic tells you that there’s plenty of warmth left in the water (lots higher than normal areas) to melt the ice.
That’s the anomaly chart. Anomalies don’t melt ice, warmth does, and according to the sea *temperature* chart, it’s downright *cold* up there…
_____
Bill, to know how ice may behave this year compared to past years, you’d have to know how the sea surface temps compare to past years, and that’s why anomalies are so important. Looking only at temps doesn’t tell you how those temps are different from what the averages are. But either way you want to equivocate it— SST’s are generally higher than average across most of the Arctic right now.