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.
Amino Acids in Meteorites says:
August 8, 2010 at 1:17 pm
stevengoddard says:
August 8, 2010 at 12:17 pm
dp
Walt Meier tells me that the amount of ice in the early 1980s was unusual.
I think I disagree with him. Unusual is a relative term. It is unusual compared to what?
It’s normal. What happened in 2007 was normal. What is happening this year is normal. What happened in the Little Ice Age was normal. And what happened during the Medieval Warm Period was normal.
Nothing unusual is happening in climate. Climate always changes. As some scientist said (I don’t remember which to give him credit), “If climate didn’t change that would be what is unusual”.
—————————–
I think this bears repeating. I always get a little cross when I see “anomaly” bandied about applied to some arbitary mean value. It sounds good but is in fact devoid of meaning.
One thing I have been noticing of late is how the solar minimum is being used to explain the short term recovery in the ice, the unusual 2008 dip in cold temperatures, colder winters etc. Well only a few years ago the influence of the sun was non-existent on climate. If the arctic does recover and a new strong La Nina appears, I suspect that the climate scientists will be arguing that it would be warming but for the weaker solar cycle, hmm does anyone see a new consensus emerging?
PIOMAS did not get “ice area correct.”
http://climateinsiders.files.wordpress.com/2010/08/piomasvsnsidcaugust62010.jpg
Thanks, Steven, for excellent update on the unpredictable Arctic sea ice.
“jakers says:
August 8, 2010 at 10:29 am
Has anybody actually looked at the satellite images lately? http://exploreourpla.net/explorer/?map=Arc&sat=ter&lon=0&lat=89,9&lvl=4&yir=2010&dag=219
The ice looks like it’s thin enough to be getting blown apart across nearly the whole arctic basin. It’s really spreading out. Wish we had an archive of these images to compare prior years.”
With the current temperature hovering around 0 degrees C, I think it more likely we will see an early re-freeze. Should this happen, my guess of 5.9mk^2 minimum will be lower than actual. However, due to the deterministic chaos inherent in climate, trying to make accurate predictions, even at short time scales, is fraught with difficulty.
Re: Bob from the UK says:
August 9, 2010 at 4:19 am
I’ve noticed the same thing.
Back in 2007 I used to merely ask questions about the influence of the variations in the sun’s intensity, primarily because the “established” graph had been replaced by a “new and improved” graph. I wanted to know what they had discovered which caused the old graph to be discarded, and also what the difference between the “high” and “low” points of the new graph were.
I was somewhat surprised by the tongue-lashing I received for even asking questions. Apparently even asking questions suggested I might have doubt that the sun had no effect. I was told in no uncertain terms the sun had no, zero, zilch, nada effect on world temperatures……or…..well…..maybe just a tiny, itty-bitty effect, but certainly not enough to matter in the slightest.
Times change.
stevengoddard says:
August 8, 2010 at 1:34 pm
““Never attribute to malice what can be adequately explained by stupidity”
– Hanlon’s Razor”
Why not? Malice is often the simplest and most likely explanation. Practically all the time in politics.
Perhaps the key lies in the phrase “adequately explained by stupidity”. With successful and intelligent people it is questionable whether mere stupidity can ever be an adequate explanation for persistent, blatant and unrepentant error. At the very least, it requires some sort of culpable refusal to examine the possibility of error, or to think things through rationally, or to avoid a possible blind spot by coming at things from another direction.
David Gould says:
August 9, 2010 at 2:04 am
Good point, and well put.
The skeptics’ dilemma is similar. We want it to get cold because it would demonstrate that CO2 is not to blame for recent warming, and yet we generally feel that cold is bad and warm is good. History certainly shows us that! If we are merely rebounding from the LIA and its associated hardships and famine, then that should be heralded as a good thing all round, not a cause for alarm. Cold kills far more people than warmth.
jlc says:
August 8, 2010 at 1:59 pm
evanmjones says:
August 8, 2010 at 9:20 am
“I have carried out extensive observations of paint drying over recent years and have also taken core samples from painted surfaces at many sites around the world. By direct measurement and correlation with tree rings and upside down Finnish mud, I have established beyond doubt that paint is now drying faster that ever before in the last 15 million years.
In fact the rate of drying has doubled in the past month.”
While I would not dissent from your conclusions concerning the long-term trend (which I would ascribe to secular shifts in the composition and use of paint, such as the very serious lead depletion problem, and the increasing prevelance of allegedly “improved” formulas) I must note that local observations do not entirely support such unprecedented rapidity as you report. On the contrary, a recently applied coat of varnish took a noticeably longer time to dry than a similar coat applied to the same surface only a few days previously, though it should be remarked that a variance in the zenithal angle of the sun may have contributed to the latter result. One should also consider the possibility that paints and varnishes may belong to significantly different populations with divergent trends.
Tune into Bastardi’s vids if you can. Not up yet….but he posted this on his blog:
“Also, remember its the Monday Morning global sea ice/temp report and you wont want to miss this as there is evidence of a an ICE RALLY in the northern hemisphere well before its supposed to start increasing. The southern hemsiphere is well above normal.”
David Gould says:
August 9, 2010 at 2:04 am
David W,
“You need to read more at Neven’s place, specifically the post on the alarmist’s dilemma. Basically, it is all about the difficult position that we alarmists are in. On the one hand, we think that – for example – the melting of the Arctic is a bad thing and the longer it takes the better; on the other hand, there is the thought that the only things that is going to prompt action to prevent bad things are things with significant symbology – such as the melting of the Arctic ice.
So we are trapped. If the Arctic ice melts slowly, that may be worse for the planet than Arctic melting rapidly. But the truth is that we do not know what will trigger action and what will trigger bad things. Hence, the dilemma for us.”
Sorry, but the nature of the post kind of makes me a little too cynical to accept your explanation.
I’m inclined to believe its more a case of Neven being happy at any sort of ice loss news that he thinks proves he is right.
Be damned with the consequences. Harsh but I call it as I see it.
Bob from the UK says:
August 9, 2010 at 4:19 am
One thing I have been noticing of late is how the solar minimum is being used to explain the short term recovery in the ice, the unusual 2008 dip in cold temperatures, colder winters etc. Well only a few years ago the influence of the sun was non-existent on climate. If the arctic does recover and a new strong La Nina appears, I suspect that the climate scientists will be arguing that it would be warming but for the weaker solar cycle, hmm does anyone see a new consensus emerging
____
Bob,
Not sure what sources you’re using to say that the sun was “non-existent” in climate (I take it you mean climate forecasts)?
Anyway, nothing could be further from the truth. From the longer term Milankovitch cycles to the shorter term solar cycles, the amount of solar energy reaching the earth and how and when it strikes the earth are obvious drivers to climate. No reputable climate expert denies the role of the sun. The dips and rises in global temps during solar minima and maxima respectively are easy to see on any global temperature chart, and amount to a tenth of a degree or so either way. If you go here:
http://www.climate4you.com/
and click on sun in the left hand column, and then schroll down to see the chart that looks at solar cycles vs global temps it is very obvious to anyway the influence of solar cycles. This chart, if you look closely is a wealth of other information as well, for it shows the effects of El Nino’s and La Ninas (check out 1974 or 1998 for example). But these effects are short lived and ride on top of the much longer term uptrend in global temps that can readily be seen.
Just looking at the same chart, and looking at the flattening of the rise in global temps during the later part of this decade (up until this year), it is more than obvious that the flattening occurrred after the peak of the last solar max (23) and during the onset of the long and deep solar minimum we saw in 2008-2009, where the sun was very quiet and saw long stretches of time with a blank sun. This was the most quiet sun in a century or so. Added to that solar minimum, we had good sized La Nina in 2008, followed by another wave of near-La Nina conditions in 2009. Is it any wonder that global temps cooled in this time frame?
But that period is passsed us now, and though we are likely in for another La Nina this fall and winter, I don’t see it getting as severe as the 2008 episode and as we approach the next solar max in 2013, I’m betting we’ll have another El Nino in that time frame (or slightly earlier) as well, and going back to the chart I introduced at the start of this post, it is fairly easy to predict more record high global temps between now and 2015.
The “race” this year is between 2009 and 2005. 2008 is pretty much unreachable and 2007 is beyond that.
JER0ME says:
August 9, 2010 at 6:27 am
Yes, cold kills far more than heat. The whole point is that the Warmist Activits are pumping out the wrong message about what is happening (or about to happen) to the world. Ill-advised governments do not properly prepare for contingenicies.
The difference between NSIDC’s Aug 4th graph (http://nsidc.org/images/arcticseaicenews/20100804_Figure2.png) and the current graph (http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/daily_images/N_stddev_timeseries.png) is remarkable. There’s an issue their data processing somewhere…
R. Gates says:
August 9, 2010 at 7:10 am
….. This was the most quiet sun in a century or so. Added to that solar minimum, we had good sized La Nina in 2008, followed by another wave of near-La Nina conditions in 2009. Is it any wonder that global temps cooled in this time frame?
But that period is passsed us now, and though we are likely in for another La Nina this fall and winter, I don’t see it getting as severe as the 2008 episode and as we approach the next solar max in 2013, I’m betting we’ll have another El Nino in that time frame (or slightly earlier) as well, and going back to the chart I introduced at the start of this post, it is fairly easy to predict more record high global temps between now and 2015.”
Actually the last La Nina was not classified as a strong event whereas the one that is coming is certainly showing the signs of being much stronger perhaps the strongest since 1974.
In terms of solar activity, it is now looking likely that the coming solar maximum might well be the quietest in a century. If we see unfudged global temp maximums in the coming 5 years I will be very surprised.
The key word being “unfudged”. Outside of people working or connected to the CRU and NASA, global temperature data is treated with a very healthy dose of scepticism these days. Sorry but there are only so many times someone can cry “wolf”.
I suspect things are going to get worse though. As more cold snaps are seen around the globe and the public is continually bombarded with stories of record high temps they will continue to treat both the news stories and the data with increasing disdain.
rbateman says:
August 9, 2010 at 7:25 am
Yes, cold kills far more than heat.
Twice as many:
0:46 video
Cold, or I should say extreme situations, also makes people become superstitious and turn on each other:
7:39 video, Sallie Ballunis
Fred N.
The explanation for the NSIDC graph discrepancy is very simple. If you look closely at the change to the most recent graph, you can see that NSIDC gave the Arctic a dose of Viagra on August 3.
[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iMIn2SKTXNU]
I believe we are in an interesting couple of years. All climate sceptic experts are predicting the temps. to not only go down but stay down. We will see. It is fascinating how the solar cycle has weakened at the time when the cooling was predicted i.e. the 60 year cycles. I’m also interested to see how CO2 reacts. I noticed how the CO2 rose very strongly as the El Nino peaked.
I just want to say that I think I’ve sorted out some of my confusion over the SST/DMI data differences I was asking about yesterday in the comments. I was apparently misinterpreting what SST was actually measuring, thinking it was air temperature, rather than temperature of the water at the surface. I just want people to know that I’d rather have obvious mistakes of mine pointed out, rather than ignored, and I appreciate the time anyone takes to set me straight. Keeps me from wasting time chasing ghosts.
Rod
R Gates said:
“it is fairly easy to predict more record high global temps between now and 2015.”
Yes I can see that you would wish for record temps, the problem is however that your predictions since the start of the year have not exactly been accurate have they?
The dogma dictates sea ice death spirals/record declines/record highs etc so you use the alarmist tool box to supply us with predictions aplenty but predictions and models are one thing whereas actual reality is quite another.
Some time ago you predicted with surprising confidence that this years polar sea ice minimum would be a record or near record low and you backed this up by using the PIOMASS model among other tools. You stated that this year would be “one heck of a melt season”, it seems you and your model were wrong and the PIPS model you derided and thought outdated and inaccurate was in fact correct.
So my friend, you cast the dice early in the year and now you are faced with the reality, a reality that you did not predict, your models did not predict and your sources did not predict. I await your revised position and predictions for the coming maximum with eager anticipation, it seems you represent the consensus view and use the consensus tool box and its very interesting to see the disconnect between the alarmist models and actual reality.
BTW I enjoy reading your posts, you bring a different side to the debate that is very useful and interesting.
You start the post with the following quote concerning PIOMAS from your april post:
“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.”
In the April post, this concerns ice “north of Barrow”:
“They are showing that by August 18, all ice will be gone north of Barrow, AK.”
I think in nine days or so you should discuss what has happened north of Barrow. Before that, it is too early to claim clear victory on this front, since although PIOMAS people did go wrong partly, your April guess hasn’t been confirmed either. Right now it seems that by August 18th, practically all ice at the coast near Barrow will indeed be gone.
We’ll see how the melt season ends only when it ends.
Cassandra King says:
August 9, 2010 at 9:21 am
R Gates said:
“it is fairly easy to predict more record high global temps between now and 2015.”
Yes I can see that you would wish for record temps, the problem is however that your predictions since the start of the year have not exactly been accurate have they?
The dogma dictates sea ice death spirals/record declines/record highs etc so you use the alarmist tool box to supply us with predictions aplenty but predictions and models are one thing whereas actual reality is quite another.
Some time ago you predicted with surprising confidence that this years polar sea ice minimum would be a record or near record low and you backed this up by using the PIOMASS model among other tools. You stated that this year would be “one heck of a melt season”, it seems you and your model were wrong and the PIPS model you derided and thought outdated and inaccurate was in fact correct.
So my friend, you cast the dice early in the year and now you are faced with the reality, a reality that you did not predict, your models did not predict and your sources did not predict. I await your revised position and predictions for the coming maximum with eager anticipation, it seems you represent the consensus view and use the consensus tool box and its very interesting to see the disconnect between the alarmist models and actual reality.
BTW I enjoy reading your posts, you bring a different side to the debate that is very useful and interesting.
_____
Thanks for your input. The melt season is far from over.
From: R. Gates on August 8, 2010 at 5:19 pm
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!
It ain’t over till the fat lady sings. I hear her.