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 looking at the various graphs, it would appear that the average minimum is around 1,000,000 sq. km. of what the ice is at this date (using the 30% extent from DMI). So losing 700,000 between now and minimum will be possible. I would likely say something closer to 1,000,000 though. The ablation rate drops off significantly from this point forward.
Come on, Steve, it’s a bit unfair to claim “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.”. The Beaufort Sea ice does have the “tongue” containing multi-year ice, but the VAST majority of the ice even inside that tongue is first-year and second-year ice according to the NSIDC map (and even open water, the melt “broke through” in the last week of July). Look closely – those blue and purple pixels dominate, and have since the April 2010 version of NSIDC arctic sea ice news. Therefore, once that “interspersive” young ice melts, it is entirely plausible that the spatially smoothed thickness is consistent with that given by PIOMAS.
As much as you are going to wish to call me “alarmist” for saying this, the old ice appears rotten…
stevengoddard says:
August 8, 2010 at 2:33 pm
“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.”
Steve Goddard,
That’s OT and I hate to disagree with you on anything, but insulting Fortran as an antiquated language is too much.
I know, C and C++ are “modern” languages, i.e. 10 years younger than Fortran. However, no matter what you think, inside every C/C++ program, is a Fortran program trying to get out.
Personally, I think the decline in science is due to the lack of LISP programmers, now there was a language. (Excuse me while I get some popcorn).
Do note that warmists are making this stuff up as they go.
R. Gates says:
August 8, 2010 at 5:06 pm
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!”
Actually, as much as it pains me to say this, I have to side with you on this one R Gates. It is quite unlikely the ice loss for the remainder of the year will be as low as 700,000km. Not in the realms of impossibility though.
The thing which works against this is the 2007 multi-year ice loss. In 2006 which is the benchmark for the lowest rate of loss if were measuring from August 7th to minimum extent (regardless of the date it falls) the ice loss was about 1 million sq km from this point forward. The next lowest were 2002 and 2003 with about 1.2 million sq km.
I’m looking at us potentially equalling the 2006 result for 2 reasons.
1) Lower temps as measured by DMI – despite Mr Gates argument on water temps under the ice being more important I’m still convinced the DMI air temps play an important factor also.
2) The above average early season loss. Other seasons which saw higher rates of loss from Ausust 7th onwards either had more first year ice remaining at that date of saw loss of multi-year ice due to unusually adverse conditions. I don’t see either present this season.
So in the end I think the most likely outcome is just at or possibly slightly under the 5.5 million originally predicted by Stephen. With the potential to go about 250,000 sq km either way due to the unknowns with regards the condition of the multi-year ice.
What I cant imagine is us hitting 4.5 million sq km. This would require a loss of a further 2 million sq km. Theres no possible indication of this occurring at the moment and it would take a very significant loss of multi-year ice from this point forward for this to occur. Even in 2007 the loss of ice from this point forward was only 1.7 million sq km in extremely adverse conditions and DMI temps a degree or two higher than they are right now.
An illustration of typical La Nina pattern only:
http://img838.imageshack.us/img838/9975/cpctutorialnawinter.gif
The triangle from Montana to Kansas to Michigan may be getting hit with some Saskatchewan Screamers this winter where temperature could go down to -50F at night.
http://img802.imageshack.us/img802/4382/usmap.gif
At least that would be my experience when the Jet Stream curves down from Canada into the US in the middle of winter and brings Arctic air behind it.
rbateman says:
August 8, 2010 at 5:15 pm
the Blocking High for La Nina
I see. You’re right. La Nina is forming quick. I see the magenta forming along the equator too.
http://img203.imageshack.us/img203/8695/sstanom.gif
I read Bill Illis say he saw La Nina coming before it showed up in the SST maps because of how the underwater currents in the Pacific along the equator were going to make a La Nina form.
Please excuse my inexcusable blunder in confusing the names of Bateman and Gates. Sorry to you both.
It seems to me that both approaches are valid (Gates’ point that the seawater is going to be a big factor in deciding melting rates and Goddard’s point that the proponents of Global warming have been using sea ice extent as a measure of warming, which is clearly a scare tactic if warm ocean currents are more important than air temperatures). The clear conclusion to me is that this science is not going to be decided by the date or extent of ice minimum, but the data as presented by Steve Goddard is a clear and visual representation of the state of the ice.
Obviously there are so many variables; previous ice levels, wind direction, ocean currents and sea temperatures, that it impossible to really make any conclusions; other than sea ice extent is a rather loose indicator of global weather trends. This ball was set rolling by the warmists, I hope they will now withdraw this scare story and give us another reason to believe the AR4 report which was put together under the chairmanship of railway engineer who also runs TERI which owns a big stake of the Chicago and Indian Carbon exchanges.
I do wonder how sensible debate can take place when there is such a polluting influence coming from the IPCC. It seems to me Steve Goddard’s work gives a good opportunity for a better more mature assessment to take place of why the ice levels vary and what it means (if anything).
crosspatch says:
August 8, 2010 at 5:22 pm
Hi crosspatch. If I remember right, in March you thought the 30% extent figure was more important than the 15% extent number and stated why…do you still feel this way? If so, what do you (or anyone else here) make of the 30% extent doing well (> 2007/2008/2009, approaching 2005) relative to the 15% number? Does anyone think it points to less dispersal of the ice near the edge and therefore less reduction of the 15% in the coming month?
-Scott
R. Gates says (August 8, 2010 at 5:06 pm):
“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!”
Indeed, as we now get closer to the end, things get crunchier. I have the same question of you, R. Gates. In predicting a drop from 6.45 mkm2 now to 4.5 by Sept 25 (giving you the largest extent of your projected dates of minimum, to give you the most days to work with), you are predicting an average of 40,000 per day right through to the flat bottom of the curve. We have lost an average of 50,000 August to date.
So the same question to you: are you serious? Does that math work for you?
My prediction, for what it is worth, is above 2009. Let’s say 5.5 +/- 0.2.
As a further comment, this years peak rate of ice extent loss, measured on a 15 day moving average (based on JAXA) has been at it lowest since 2003 and even then the difference to the 2003 result is marginal. The peak rates for those years are:
2003 86,156 sq km per day
2004 86,822
2005 90,552
2006 91,656
2007 118,906
2008 89,447
2009 101,541
2010 86,614
For those who say the 2010 season is not yet over, the latest date for peak loss was in 2004 on 9th August which had a very slow early season melt and subsequently lost a lot of first year ice later in the season. 2009 also reached its peak rate fairly late but saw significant losses in the latter part of July which contributed to this.
The current 15 day moving average for this year stands at 68,114 but is likely to fall signifcantly in the next few days as we drop a couple of bigger days from 14-15 days ago.
Nightvid Cole
Why is concrete much stronger than cement by itself?
wsbriggs says:
August 8, 2010 at 5:43 pm
inside every C/C++ program, is a Fortran program trying to get out.
I remember sitting in front of a computer screen in college back when FORTRAN was the hot language to learn for getting a computer job and trying to find what period I had either omitted or put in the wrong place that was causing my assignment to have a bug. Those days of staring at the green lettering on the screen (there was not multi-color then) for hours—gosh I don’t miss them.
Julian in Wales says:
August 8, 2010 at 3:32 pm
==============================
Ummm….you mean Gates and not Bateman.
You need to pay a little more attention.
Don’t drag Rob (Bateman) into this.
He is one of the best posters on this site.
Chris
Norfolk, VA, USA
R. Gates says:
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, and have questions about how sensitive the climate might be to this change…and so I do.
===========================
40% rise in the last few hundred years?
40% from what? Oh the bottoming out from the last Ice Age?
From 180 ppm?
You may want to remember that plants SHUT OFF production at 150 ppm. That almost happened in the last Ice Age.
Now THAT would have been an extreme event.
Also, you forget the logarithmic curve of CO2 rise to temperature rise.
Diminishing returns, R.
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2009/07/co2_temperature_curve_saturation.png
No “extreme event” there.
Moving on….
Chris
Norfolk, VA, USA
rbateman
here’s the equator currents animation
http://www.pmel.noaa.gov/tao/vis/vis5d/sst-wind-cur-eqt-20c-med-spin.html
R. Gates says:
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, and have questions about how sensitive the climate might be to this change…and so I do.
Depends on the context. If it is a minor greenhouse gas whose net effect is obliterated by the effects of other green house gases then this statement is one hell of a stretch.
Nice segue into the SH Steve!
Bruce Friesen says:
August 8, 2010 at 6:05 pm
R. Gates says (August 8, 2010 at 5:06 pm):
“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!”
Indeed, as we now get closer to the end, things get crunchier. I have the same question of you, R. Gates. In predicting a drop from 6.45 mkm2 now to 4.5 by Sept 25 (giving you the largest extent of your projected dates of minimum, to give you the most days to work with), you are predicting an average of 40,000 per day right through to the flat bottom of the curve. We have lost an average of 50,000 August to date.
So the same question to you: are you serious? Does that math work for you?
My prediction, for what it is worth, is above 2009. Let’s say 5.5 +/- 0.2
___________
A reasonable prediction, but I think too high. Here’s why:
1) Water temps are higher than normal across the Arctic
2) We’ve had recent divergence in the ice, causing the extent drop to slow down, but as I’ve pointed out, this does not mean the rate of melting has slowed! We won’t really know about melt rates in real terms until we get volume data from CryoSat 2.
I think that we are setting up for a final month or so of melting to be something very much like 2008. Take a look at this rate of change chart:
http://iup.physik.uni-bremen.de:8084/amsr/ext_rates_n.png
Now, look closely at 2008 at about this time of year. We had a sudden rapid decline in the extent at the end of the season and you can see that the rate of change of the extent fell off a cliff, so to speak. You can see what 2008 did in the actual extent here:
http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/seaice/extent/AMSRE_Sea_Ice_Extent_L.png
The ice spread just prior to the late season drop in 2008, and then the extent rate really fell off the cliff and 2008 extent dropped dramatically at the end of the season. This I think is how we’ll end this year. I think the rate of change will move toward 2008’s. Watch for this period of divergence come to a fairly rapid end, and the extent to track right along 2008’s trail until the end, where I think by the nature a a bit later date for the minimum (2008’s minimum came Sept. 9th, and I don’t see this years minimum coming until Sept. 20-25), we’ll see 2010 just edge under 2008’s minimum.
R. Gates said on August 8, 2010 at 5:06 pm:
Note the margins. I expect 5.6 million km^2 as the realistic amount. This puts it on the high end of the SEARCH September Sea Ice Outlook: July Report, and in previous years the vast majority of SIO respondents have been too pessimistic, by considerable margins.
I also see cooling coming on fast, so 5.7 is not absurd. And in case you missed it, according to the authoritative terrifying PIOMAS Arctic Sea Ice Volume Anomaly chart, things are getting better. Note the sharp upward trend of reduced daily deficits relative to 1979-2009. The thin bits appears gone to just about gone, leaving a large thick mass (or masses to get technical) that will be resistant to further loss. See how the above JAXA area chart shows a sharp reduction in rate of loss while the extent continued dropping, with the thickness by PIPS stabilizing. Yup, it’s down to the big stuff and the energy just doesn’t seem to be there to get much more loss. The extent loss will soon level off.
Perhaps I should have written it as 5.6 +0.2/-0.0 million km^2, or just 5.6-5.8 10^6 km^2.
BTW, proper nomenclature is important in science. The correct terminology to describe my prediction is not “amazing.” More precisely, it is “ballsy.” 😉
Julian in Wales says:
August 8, 2010 at 7:13 pm
R. Gates says:
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, and have questions about how sensitive the climate might be to this change…and so I do.
Depends on the context. If it is a minor greenhouse gas whose net effect is obliterated by the effects of other green house gases then this statement is one hell of a stretch.
______
I suppose where we differ is looking at CO2 as being a “minor” GH gas. Certainly water vapor plays a bigger role, but it hasn’t increased 40% since the mid 1700’s.
Joe Bastardi on why he thinks there’s a shift in Arctic ice relating to PDO
7:16 video
http://www.accuweather.com/video/407515952001/sea-ice-and-common-sense-explain-global-warming.asp?channel=vbbastaj
R. Gates said (August 8, 2010 at 7:31 pm)
“I think that we are setting up for a final month or so of melting to be something very much like 2008” and “the extent rate really fell off the cliff and 2008 extent dropped dramatically at the end of the season”.
Excellent response. Better than math, better than a believable time series of 48 melt days averaging 40,000 per day from now through Sept. 25 – a historical example. Thanks for that!
Now we can easily compare, on the chart, your prognosis with the actual situation as things evolve.
Clearly, for 2010 to follow the path followed in 2008, things must start lining up side by side very soon. I am tempted to ask how many days we can go at lower-than-2008 melt rates before you throw in the towel, but it would be rude of me to try to pin you down that tightly. It will be fun to watch actual outcomes versus your scenario, and judge the residual realistic-ness of a forecast minimum of 4.5 mkm2 each day. My opinion: the next week will tell the tale on the “follow 2008” scenario.
Thanks again for your clarity of response! Sincerely.
Rod Everson says:
August 8, 2010 at 1:39 pm
it would be helpful if people would translate the acronyms the first time in a post for those of us relatively new to this who are trying to follow along.
Glossary:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/glossary/
Oddly enough though, MYI isn’t in it. Lots of others are.
R. Gates says:
August 8, 2010 at 7:46 pm
I suppose where we differ is looking at CO2 as being a “minor” GH gas. Certainly water vapor plays a bigger role, but it hasn’t increased 40% since the mid 1700′s.
40% increase of 250 ppm is still measured in Parts Per Million.
Put into everyday perspective: Your CEO makes $20 on every part per million of water vapor/year, while you make $20 on every part per million of C02/year.