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.
Excerpt from: R. Gates on August 8, 2010 at 12:32 pm
Good enough for government work. Haven’t you noticed how the US economy has been in a recovery, as declared over a much shorter period than three years? And remember, if you’re collecting Social Security then the administration that declared that recovery is managing your finances, at least a portion of them.
Feel free to take it up with them how to define a “recovery.”
🙂
stevengoddard says:
August 8, 2010 at 1:46 pm
R. Gates,
When you say that you expect just slightly above 2007, does that mean you are forecasting an asteroid impact in the next six weeks?
http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/icecover.uk.php
Because that is the only way it is going to happen.
No, he told me yesterday he never made any predictions about dramatic ice loss in August. So asteroid impact is out of the question.
(but maybe a meteorite with amino acids in it is a possibility 😉 )
I would not be surprised to see NH ice go above 2005-2006 judging from the time lapse CT video it seems to be freezing over again but then again let us see… In any case as some above say, I don’t think polar ice is in any way a measure of hypothetical AGW
stevengoddard says:
August 8, 2010 at 1:46 pm
R. Gates,
When you say that you expect just slightly above 2007, does that mean you are forecasting an asteroid impact in the next six weeks?
http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/icecover.uk.php
Because that is the only way it is going to happen.
___________
I don’t need to rely on such a random occurance, as I’ve trained a large group of Orcas with lasers mounted on their heads to melt the ice. Once in a while they miss and hit a polar bear, but this is simply the the cost of doing business. I understand they were using a certain glacier in Greenland for target practice and a bit of it may have broken off. Oops…sorry about that Greenland…
Amino
Remember – the US Navy (PIPS) is wrong. The Navy knows nothing about the ocean.
Professors bludgeoning the art of computer programming from their office using a 40 year old antiquated language (Fortran) know much more about the ocean than the US Navy does.
Once again, each ice data point as well as land temperature data points are a measure (snapshots if you will) of oceanic and atmospheric weather conditions at that moment. The average is therefore the average of these snapshots, IE weather.
The statistical average does not magically become climate related to CO2. The only way that can happen is if you can prove that each and every ice or weather data point is the result of anthropogenic CO2 on top of the weather. In other words, if it is currently 89 degrees at 2:46 in NE Oregon, you must be able to show that without the anthropogenic CO2 increase, it would be 88.8 degrees. Even if you could prove it with a mathematical equation, the problem with that is that given the atmospheric conditions that clearly explain the current temperature, the standard deviation of these weather conditions is much larger than the effect that CO2 would have on the temperature right now.
R. Gates, you don’t even realize what you are doing. It’s pretty obvious to many of us. You are practicing confirmation bias to the extreme. Look at the divergence situation. It’s a two edged sword. If the temps drop the water between the ice partitions will freeze and that will lead to an increase in the extent. However, you didn’t even consider this in your post.
And, along this vein, have you considered what the extent would be now without the wind based 2007 ice loss? How would that impact the trend?
Finally, if the extent had recovered without the 2007 loss, what would that have meant for global temperatures? With increased albedo would we have seen a lowering of the global temperature indicies? If you ever want to understand issues like climate you need to practice some critical thinking. So far, I haven’t seen much.
john edmondson says:
August 8, 2010 at 7:46 am
10 day average is falling now. I would estimate 25 more days of melt at 40,000 sq km average. So 5.45m sq km left mid Sept.”
Actually, in 2006 the rate of ice loss from this point forward to the minimum was only 25,000 sq km per day (similar in 2003 i think). Whilst other years had much higher averages (in the JAXA extent data), those were generally due to late melting first year ice.
As the DMI temp graph is showing temps matching those we saw in 2006 (perhaps even lower), I’m very much inclined to agree with Stephen although I do think it less likely we’ll get above 5.6 million sq km.
The 2009 result was 5.3 million sq km btw so, were we to beat that figure it would represent 3 years of increasing minimums. Looking at the multi-year ice starting to make its way back into the East Siberian I would argue there is fairly strong evidence the ice pack is starting to recover. Certainly more than there is to support any continuation of the “death spiral”.
And yes Anu, for the past week the daily rate of ice loss has been:
“dropping like a rock”
What will be interesting to see is when we will have the first day of increased extent. In the years that the JAXA data covers, 24th August has been the earliest. Although this doesnt signify the minimum which is normally 100-200,000 sq km below that mark.
Ice seems to be increasing tonight.Is it possible it has reached minimum?dmi arctic temperature remains low.If arctic ice remains above the 2007 minimum this year or shows an increase on the 2009 minimum then this shows that the mathematical models showing constant decline of the arctic sea ice minimum no longer are realistic,people should accept that decline has stopped.
donald penman says:
August 8, 2010 at 2:57 pm
Ice seems to be increasing tonight.Is it possible it has reached minimum?dmi arctic temperature remains low.If arctic ice remains above the 2007 minimum this year or shows an increase on the 2009 minimum then this shows that the mathematical models showing constant decline of the arctic sea ice minimum no longer are realistic,people should accept that decline has stopped.”
I think its very unlikely that we’ve reached the minimum yet Donald. Expect to see decreasing extent for at least another month.
I dont know where anyone is seeing an uptick on JAXA data. Could be just an optical illusion on the JAXA chart. In terms of the data for 7th August, it was about 44,000 sq km loss when initially posted, adjusted to 39,000 sq km overnight.
I am not a scientist and it is from this perspective I read the contrasting comments between Steve Goddard and R Bateman with a lot of interest. I think Bateman ‘s ice cubes analogy on a table is interesting and it seems he is talking common sense when he says that warmer water will affect the melting speed more than air temperature or weak sunshine from a low altitude sun; so water temperature will be a bigger factor than air temperature in how fast the ice is melting. What I do not understand is his point scoring, especially the childish claims that he wins both ways, which seems to be making a presumption that Goddard will lose if the ice extent goes on falling beyond a given point. It seems to me that Bateman is trying to make a point that he learns from making observation but Goddard does not. It as if Bateman is saying I am sincere but Goddard is not.
It troubles me that Bateman is casting aspersions on the sincerity of his opponents; this is because Himalayagate is still fresh in my mind. I remember the stupid predictions in the AR4 report that the Glaciers on the Himalayas would be gone within 30 years, and the even more stupid comments from the chairman of the IPCC that a scientist who disputed the IPCC predictions was a voodoo scientist.
Bateman may have some good points to make and as an outsider I am interested to read his contributions, but his manner of attack does not give me much confidence to take him as sincere. I am left wondering whether he is really a scientist or just another variant of the Pachauri cult: avoid debate by calling all opponents’ voodoo scientists (or in this case insincere). As a reader I would like to assume both sides are sincere and the object of the debate is that both sides will come closer together.
Julian in Wales
In a few weeks it will be clear who was being sincere.
Jordan says:
August 8, 2010 at 11:13 am
…
I’d urge a good dash of caution when initial data comes out across the August/September trough.
___
Yes, the extent data tends to move daily as you described. First too much melting reported with a correction for less melting later in the day. This was just on the graph of ‘area’, not ‘extent’, and surprised me that it was going up… or so I thought. No big deal. Probably just a glitch that was soon corrected in hours.
Julian in Wales: August 8, 2010 at 3:32 pm
I am not a scientist and it is from this perspective I read the contrasting comments between Steve Goddard and R Bateman with a lot of interest.
I believe you meant “R. Gates” — “rbateman” hasn’t shown up on the thread as yet.
Thanks for the interesting post. Hopefully we will end the 2010 Arctic melt with more ice than last year.
I have one question. Where did you find the JAXA Sea Ice Area graph? I found the Sea Ice Extent graph, but not the area graph. Please post a link.
R. Gates
If a person is really looking at things from a longer term perspective, then you would recogize the 40% rise in CO2 in a matter of a few hundred years is an extreme event
______
Why?
—–
Bill Tuttle says:
August 8, 2010 at 1:55 pm
Looking at a *really* longer term perspective, a 40% rise in CO2 in a few hundred years is not an extreme event at all. Temperatures have risen while CO2 was rising, and temperatures have *fallen* while CO2 was going through the roof. Temperatures have fallen while CO2 was falling, and temperatures have *risen* while CO2 was falling.
http://www-das.uwyo.edu/~geerts/cwx/notes/chap01/icecore.html
Ice cores. Gotta love ‘em.
—-
So R. Gates:
Are you aware of ice core data? Or is it too old for you? Or maybe its not model generated? What’s wrong with factual data? And why should anything as trace as 4 parts per 10,000 be significant?
kadaka (KD Knoebel) says:
August 8, 2010 at 11:55 am
That’s just R. Gates pulling a “hide the decline” trick. He uses the anomaly map to argue how “warm” it is up there. The real map you want for comparison to the current DMI figure is:
http://polar.ncep.noaa.gov/sst/ophi/color_sst_NPS_ophi0.png
Originating page for both (with lots of other SST maps and data):
http://polar.ncep.noaa.gov/sst/ophi/
___
You’re right, much better. Didn’t realize an actual-temperature matching chart was available there. Thanks.
After several months of reading the articles here and staring at the data ’til I got a feel for it, my gut gave me a number, 5.7.
As the season has progressed, I have seen confirmation of it in the trends. Now I want to be more hopeful, but I’ve learned throughout my life the problems from being too hopeful, but also what happens from not being hopeful enough.
So put me down for a 5.7 +/- 0.1 million km^2 minimum by the IARC-JAXA sea ice extent numbers. That’s my prediction.
stevengoddard says:
August 8, 2010 at 2:33 pm
he US Navy (PIPS)
Speaking of the Navy it looks like they think La Nina will get stronger:
http://www7320.nrlssc.navy.mil/GLBhycom1-12/navo/equpacsst_nowcast_anim30d.gif
It could be a cold winter for Canada and the northern 1/2 of the USA.
http://faculty.washington.edu/kessler/ENSO/nawinter.html
How far negative is the temperature anomaly going to go because of La Nina? Joe Bastardi has said it could go as low as the cooling from Mt. Pinatubo went.
http://img808.imageshack.us/img808/1943/uahlt1979thrujuly10.gif
I can’t myself tell because I don’t have experience but I can see the fast Sea Surface Temp drop suggests it going to go negative.
http://img827.imageshack.us/img827/943/amsresstglobalandnino34.gif
At “cryosphere today” (just now) it appears that the global sea ice anomaly is at least temporarily back under 0.1 million square km. Something to think on at least.
Julian in Wales says:
August 8, 2010 at 3:32 pm
____
My contention with Steve’s analysis is that he keeps refering the the extent slow down as a measurement of the rate of melting slowing down. This is erroneous (as my long ice cubes on a table analogy relating to divergence points out). The truth is, no one knows what the actual melt rate is, and so, since CryoSat 2 thickness data is not yet on line yet (at least to some of us), then extent data or area data serve as a poor man’s proxy to actually knowing what the ice is doing. During times of divergence, the ice spreads out, which can suddenly slow down the decline in extent, but it absolutely does not mean the ice isn’t continuing to melt at the same, or even faster rate. Think of it logically– if most of the melt is occurring from the water, do you think the water can cool that fast (i.e. in a matter of days) to change the rate of melt that fast? But weather system can move across the Arctic and spread the ice very rapidly, causing this divergence and the extent to stop dropping so fast, though the ice is melting at the same rate. In short, extent loss does not equal melt rate loss. Some other have pointed out this recent divergence, and also the low concentration across much of the Arctic.
Now, if the Arctic water temps were anomalously cool right now, I would have a different take on things, and perhaps even agree with Steve, but temps remain anomalously WARM across most of the Arctic waters, and so, that diverged ice has moved further over that open warm water and, well…it is melting as we speak.
____________________
stevengoddard says:
August 8, 2010 at 3:37 pm
Julian in Wales
In a few weeks it will be clear who was being sincere.
________
In a little more than a month or so it will be clear who was closer to forecasting the 2010 minimum, which I think will occur sometime between Sept. 20-25. But make no mistake, I am always sincere, and despite our different perceptions, have the greatest amount of respect for Steve and the other honest seekers of truth here, and do sincerely apologize for being abrasive at times, but hopefully not abusive. We may see the world differently, but the more honest we are with ourselves and others, the more clearly we’ll see that world. In regards to my statement, “I win either way”, I honestly feel this way. If I’m right, and sometime during the end of September the Arctic sea ice touches near the 4.5 million sq. km. mark before heading back up for the winter, then my analysis will be proven correct, and I’ll have more faith in some of my longer term projections. If I’m wrong, then I’ll look at the reasons why and hope to learn something in the process.
Julian in Wales says:
August 8, 2010 at 3:32 pm
It is R. Gates who opposes Steve Goddard routinely, not I.
kadaka (KD Knoebel) says:
August 8, 2010 at 4:45 pm
After several months of reading the articles here and staring at the data ’til I got a feel for it, my gut gave me a number, 5.7.
As the season has progressed, I have seen confirmation of it in the trends. Now I want to be more hopeful, but I’ve learned throughout my life the problems from being too hopeful, but also what happens from not being hopeful enough.
So put me down for a 5.7 +/- 0.1 million km^2 minimum by the IARC-JAXA sea ice extent numbers. That’s my prediction.
______
So you think we’ll only lose 700,000 sq. km. in the next 40 days days or so to the minimum, despite the fact that we’ve lost 400,000 in the last 8 days…wow…very amazing prediction!
Amino Acids in Meteorites says:
August 8, 2010 at 4:51 pm
http://faculty.washington.edu/kessler/ENSO/nawinter.html
If you look at the usnisys SST anomaly, you’ll see that the Blocking High for La Nina is already close to being in place.
http://weather.unisys.com/surface/sst_anom.html
And that High is supposed to be OVER the Pacific Northwest for our summer, not out to sea.
wayne says:
August 8, 2010 at 4:33 pm
kadaka (KD Knoebel) says:
August 8, 2010 at 11:55 am
That’s just R. Gates pulling a “hide the decline” trick. He uses the anomaly map to argue how “warm” it is up there. The real map you want for comparison to the current DMI figure is:
http://polar.ncep.noaa.gov/sst/ophi/color_sst_NPS_ophi0.png
Originating page for both (with lots of other SST maps and data):
http://polar.ncep.noaa.gov/sst/ophi/
___
You’re right, much better. Didn’t realize an actual-temperature matching chart was available there. Thanks
_____
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.