Our one stop shopping Sea Ice Page has quickly become a world wide favorite, and Joe Bastardi of AccuWeather uses some of the graphics offered there.
To watch the AccuWeather broadcast go to:
http://www.accuweather.com/video.asp?channel=vbbastaj
=======================================
Steve Goddard writes that so far, “steady as a rock” and offers some interesting analysis:
At the beginning of June, I observed that the PIPS ice distribution in 2010 was very similar to 2006. The distributions were nearly identical, with 2010 average thickness a little lower than 2006.
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. 2006 had the highest minimum (and smallest maximum) in the DMI record. Like 2010, the ice was compressed and thick in 2006. Conclusion : Should we expect a nice recovery this summer due to the thicker ice? You bet ya.
Since then we have read seemingly endless hysterics by Joe Romm and government sources about record melt rates, and how clueless and ignorant my analysis has been. So let’s look at what has actually happened since June 1. The graph below shows JAXA extent since June 1 for 2006 and 2010.
Basically, they are two parallel lines. 2010 has tracked 2006 quite closely – just as PIPS said they should. There have been no major diversions from the pattern this summer. Summer 2010 has been almost a straight line. Apparently some bloggers “can’t see the forest for the trees.”
In the DMI record, 2010 has passed every year except 2005 and 2006. The only real question now is – will 2010 end up in the #2 or #3 spot?
Closeup below:
At the end of May, Mark Serreze and Joe Romm had a different take for 2010:
“Could we break another record this year? I think it’s quite possible,” said Mark Serreze of the National Snow and Ice Data Center in Boulder, Colo.
We are in the fourth quarter of the 2010 game. The score right now is :
Breathtakingly Ignorant* WUWT – 1
Experts – 0
Will the peer reviewed experts score at the last minute? What do you think?
* A term coined by Dr. Mark Serrezze
Pamela Gray- one of my biggest fears, having grown up myself on a NE Oregon Wheat
and Cattle Ranch- is that Bitter cold/dry scenario. Happened a bit last Dec, when the
arctic air came down the Rockies and gave us here in NE Oregon a good cold, dry spell.
Happened back in the late ’40’s and early 50’s to the point that spring wheat was relpaced by barley by a lot of farmers. Yet the were some Hellacious snows then too.
Pop had to replace his truck with his and Granpa’s Clydesdale teams to get to town
with the Bobsled…
Don’t go no Clydesdale team now….
Breathtakingly Ignorant* WUWT – 1
Experts – 0
“What’s an expert? I read somewhere, that the more a man knows, the more he knows he doesn’t know. So I suppose one definition of an expert would be someone who doesn’t admit out loud that he knows enough about a subject to know he doesn’t really know how much.”
~Malcolm S. Forbes
Oh drat, it’s doing it again:
http://www.robertb.darkhorizons.org/seaice.anomaly.Ant_arctic.jpg
The horse refuses to be tamed.
tonyb: Thanks for that detailed information.
Arctic ice, like everything else in the climate system, will inevitably experience natural fluctuations. No-one’s disputing that. The fact that ice has increased and declined due to natural causes in the past doesn’t in itself mean that the current decline is natural. Agreed?
Link 1: The article doesn’t state that the decline started around 1976/9, nor that the decline from 1979 was from ‘a high point’.
Link 2: Same problem. The data only goes back to 1979.
Link 3: Same problem in the first two figures. Figure 4.10 actually shows that there was no ‘high point’ or ‘peak ice’ at 1979 (blue and red curves), disproving both you and Steven Goddard.
Link 4: The previously cited Figure 4.10 also shows that there was no significant growth in Arctic ice in the ’70s.
Link 5: Again, Figure 4.10 shows there was no ‘peak ice’ in the 1970s.
Link 6: You say “The IPCC are not very good at their historic reconstructions and generally view actual observations as ‘anecdotal.’ They seem to believe that history did not start before 1979”, whilst at the very same time citing a figure from IPCC AR4 which starts in the year 1860. Enough said on that I think.
Link 7: Again, we know that Arctic ice increased and declined in the past, but that doesn’t tell us much about why it’s declining now. What factors were in play in the 1920s – 1940s? Increasing TSI may have been involved then – it can’t be today, because TSI hasn’t increased in the last half century.
Link 8: Again, there was no ‘high level’ or ‘peak ice’ at the start of the satellite era. There is no evidence provided that this current long-term decline is a ‘cycle’ (by which I presume you mean non-anthropogenic).
Link 9: Again, melting in 1920 – 1940 doesn’t in itself tell us anything about the cause of the current long-term decline.
Link 10: Re-iterates my point about solar contribution to Arctic warming of 1920s – 1940s. Doesn’t in itself tell us anything about the cause of the current long-term decline.
Link 11: Adds nothing to the points you raised in earlier links.
Link 12: Seems to support the anthropogenic cause for current Arctic ice decline. Interesting that this was already well fleshed-out in 1969.
Link 13: Again, no-one’s disputing the fact that the Arctic ice has increased and declined in the past. This point seems to be what occupies most of the rest of your contribution.
My questions to you: What would the state of Arctic ice be in the last 30 years under purely natural conditions – i.e. with no anthropogenic influences? How would you know? You cited IPCC data when you thought it supported your position, so how about this IPCC graph?:
http://www.ipcc.ch/graphics/syr/fig2-5.jpg
It shows a clear divergence between models using only natural forcings, and models using both natural and anthropogenic forcings. Is there something similar for Arctic ice cover? It would be nice to know, wouldn’t it?
“Science is the belief in the ignorance of the experts.”
~ Richard Feynman
Icarus says:
August 9, 2010 at 3:14 pm
Pamela Gray: You make a fair point, climate is a lot more complicated than a few points on a graph, but nevertheless I think Arctic sea ice extent must give us at least *some* indication of long-term climate in the region, and since a number of previous contributors were talking of a ‘recovery’ it seemed reasonable to ask where there was any sign of such a recovery in the ice extent data. From what I can tell, there isn’t one. Given the scale of year-to-year variations I think it would probably take at least 15 years and probably more for any significant deviation from the long-term decline to become clear.
Icarus, this post shows you are starting to increase your knowledge. Your silly decades comparison was proof that you know how to lie with statistics, nothing else.
I do believe just about everyone here already understands that Arctic sea ice has declined in the last 30 years. If that was your point then you have provided nothing that wasn’t already known. In addition, just about everyone here also knows the biggest part of that drop was due to the winds in 2007. Without that wind driven ice decrease it’s possible we’d being seeing much larger extents now.
The most interesting thing is that it appears we are going to see the 3rd straight year of recovery for an extremely weakened ice pack. That is also interesting since it demonstrates that the ice is not as easy to melt as many of the “experts” have obviously predicted. It also should tell you that something is happening. Once you open your eyes to ALL that is going around you may actually begin to learn something. Good luck.
@ur momisugly rbateman
“Make a roulette wheel with regions instead of red & black numbers.”
The boys at MIT got a government grant to come up with their spinning wheel climate predictor, here you are giving away a similar idea for free.
Mike says:
August 9, 2010 at 11:44 am
SG on June 2: “Conclusion : Should we expect a nice recovery this summer due to the thicker ice? You bet ya. Even if all the ice less than 2.5 metres thick melted this summer, we would still see a record high minimum in the DMI charts.”
Mark Serreze on May 20: “Could we break another record this year? I think it’s quite possible.”
The results to date:
“Arctic sea ice extent averaged for July was the second lowest in the satellite record, after 2007. After a slowdown in the rate of ice loss, the old, thick ice that moved into the southern Beaufort Sea last winter is beginning to melt out.”
http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/
SG – 0.0
MS – 0.8
This is why we don’t let students grade themselves.”
And we shouldnt grade until the test is complete. Lets see where were at the minimum extent. Steve has predicted a minimum extent of 5.5 million sq km for most of the season and it looks like being quite accurate. He said the recovery would be due to thicker ice which is clearly only going to become evident as we move towards the end of the season. Steve also correctly predicted the slowdown in July.
Naturally the extent through July was going to be low after the rapid rates of FIRST YEAR ICE in warm conditions during May and June.
On the other hand Mark Sereeze has pushed the possiblity of a record low extent most of the season which I guess was pretty easy when he saw rapid rates of loss during May/June. It is now patently obvious were not going to get near the 2007 minimum. Thats a big fail in my books, even more so given the position Mark is in.
All I can say is I’m glad I didnt have you grading me whilst I was in school. I probably would have dropped out in frustration.
Today’s north-pole-camera picture is partly obscured by snow on lens, but seems to show melt-water pool near camera is completely covered by fresh snow.
Regarding coming winter:
Some anomaly maps show three degrees above normal in Northeast USA. A cozy rose color, on anomaly maps. Don’t be fooled. January’s average temperature in Boston is 29, and three degrees above normal is 32, still plenty cold enough for snow. In fact, warmer is often moister, so snow may be all the more likely.
The same maps show it colder than normal up near the pole. This may indicate the arctic air is trapped up there for long periods. However it also suggests that, although arctic outbreaks may be rare, when they do come charging down they are likely to be super cold. Therefore the “mild” winter in the northeast may get a couple of cold waves that stand out in people’s memories for years afterwards.
Icarus says:
August 9, 2010 at 1:17 pm
In what context was there ‘unusually high ice’? A recent study by the Northern Arizona University and the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) finds that Arctic temperature has been rising for the last 100 years or so —-
2 points of interest. You rely on a biased, discredited Higher Authority. UCAR.
Last 100 years or so.. Industrialisation has not been linear. WW2 was the catalyst for most of what we take as heavy industry. Inclusive of home appliances, aircons, lighting etc. So if the warming has been going on for 100 years or so what was the warming factor caused by?? Natural??
regards
One thing Mr. Bastardi is aware of is that an anomaly of a degree at the poles represents far less energy than a degree at the equator.
For a rough example, it takes ten times as much energy to raise water from 60 to 61 as it does to raise water from 40 to 41. It takes a hundred times as much energy to raise water from 80 to 81 as it does to raise water from 40 to 41.
Most anomaly maps are based on temperature alone, and people get fooled by them. They see water is cherry red in the arctic, three degrees above the normal 32, and merely light pink at the equator, where water is merely a half degree above the normal 90, and people assume there is more energy in the arctic, “because it is redder.” In fact the half degree anomaly at the equator may represent a hundred times as much energy as the three degree anomaly up towards the poles.
What is needed is an anomaly map based on available energy, as opposed to mere temperature.
As Mr. Bastardi explains the patterns he sees, he seems to have a intuitive grasp of the actual energy involved, likely due to years of diligent work.
Mike
NSIDC had a little glitch last week in their ice measurements. ;^)
Hey, Cryosphere actually responded to me re their archives being down. First time I’ve accomplished a response from them in 3 or 4 tries.
One Bill Chapman writes:
“I hope to have some time to work on this next week. It is likely we will keep the coarse-resolution images from the SSMI source so that recent images can be readily compared with corresponding images back to the late 1970s. (apples vs. apples)
Thanks for writing.”
I had suggested/hoped that perhaps their down time was due to an upgrade in the archives to the newer higher-res images (at least as far back as they have them), which explains his comment re continuing with the older lower-res ones.
But still, good news nonetheless –it is a temporary issue that should be addressed soonish.
Anthony, I am using your wonderful site to make sure people can see the truth as measured by objective sources.. What you have done is wonderful
For those wondering about the very cold winter for much of polar regions of the northern hemisphere.. its my forecast. I think Alaska, much of Asia and the polar regions are in for a colder than normal winter with the second half worse than the first.. I think Alaska is in for a top 10 cold winter, and only a lag up front might stop it .. the cold PDO and what I see in the hemispheric pattern, the same thing by the way that had me call the La Nina in Feb and the hot summers in the US and much of europe and Asia… are evolving nicely for a global drop in temp to levels comparable to the post nino of 97-98 and in the extreme case, the post Pinitubo levels. But I do have model support, if not with the silly CFS, it is very cold Jan on, then Frontier research center modeling, which has been doing very well on the heat of the summer. Take a look at it, and scroll down to the winter season. You will see that it is in support of my ideas
http://www.jamstec.go.jp/frsgc/research/d1/iod/
In answer to Where do I see this? In the research I do to come up with forecasts. I work in the private sector, and if the long range forecast going out to clients who have to use it to make money were not of value, then I would not be in demand. These forecasts you see go out far in advance to people that are my clients. But I dont have a secret model..THERE ARE NO SHORT CUTS, only hard work and the willingness to take a stand and face the truth. from tomorrow, through the next decade and beyond, hence the AGW issue to me, a BIG FORECAST, which I am confident I am going to get right! . And again, no grants, no academia, if I am wrong, it means people drop me. I get no benefit for being a mouth piece for anything, unless I am right. So when winter is over, we shall see if it was cold in the areas I am forecasting it to be. I think this winter is very bad in Alaska and part of a package of cold that will engulf much of the arctic regions.
A cold PDO does not yield a warm winter in Alaska, though I think the second half is nastier than the first half. If you see Sarah Palin, make sure you warn her (lol)
Caleb,
You wrote :
“it takes ten times as much energy to raise water from 60 to 61 as it does to raise water from 40 to 41. It takes a hundred times as much energy to raise water from 80 to 81 as it does to raise water from 40 to 41.”
1 calorie will raise 1 gram 1 degree Celsius. 1 calorie = 4.186 joules
There is no component of absolute temperature.
Caleb says:
August 9, 2010 at 7:37 pm
One thing Mr. Bastardi is aware of is that an anomaly of a degree at the poles represents far less energy than a degree at the equator.
For a rough example, it takes ten times as much energy to raise water from 60 to 61 as it does to raise water from 40 to 41. It takes a hundred times as much energy to raise water from 80 to 81 as it does to raise water from 40 to 41.
Most anomaly maps are based on temperature alone, and people get fooled by them. They see water is cherry red in the arctic, three degrees above the normal 32, and merely light pink at the equator, where water is merely a half degree above the normal 90, and people assume there is more energy in the arctic, “because it is redder.” In fact the half degree anomaly at the equator may represent a hundred times as much energy as the three degree anomaly up towards the poles.
What is needed is an anomaly map based on available energy, as opposed to mere temperature.
======================================
Repeated here for effect.
Caleb. Outstanding post. Thank you.
Reminds me of how Hurricane Ike, when it absolutely flattened the Bolivar Peninsula in Texas in 2008 with a CAT-4 [at least] storm surge, but with only a CAT-2 Saffir-Simpson rating, as its winds were only 110 MPH.
But the total available energy of the storm, measured in joules, was much more than the normal “2” classification.
This was warned in advance, and so that was good.
But it also showed major weaknesses in the warning and classification system…and that a one-dimensional label will not suffice.
Same as in the case of your suggestions for improvement here.
They make total sense.
Chris
Norfolk, VA, USA
Icarus
Since you like looking at the longer term (which is a better metric of climate) take a look at these and tell me the trend or can you see a pattern?
Click, click, click, click, click, click, click and click
Icarus,
Here is a media perspective concerning climate fears about warming and cooling over the past 100 years plus:
http://www.businessandmedia.org/specialreports/2006/fireandice/fireandice.asp
http://www.almanac.com/sites/new.almanac.com/files/1895_cvr1_0.png
http://newsbusters.org/node/11640
http://anotherviewonclimate.wordpress.com/2010/01/15/time-announces-approaching-ice-age/
As you can clearly see there is nothing new here. :o)
Dan in California says:
August 9, 2010 at 8:47 am
I recall last year when they were wringing their hands about the all-time minimum ice thickness, but now that’s recovering, and they are silent on that too.
Some are still insisting there is rotted/alarmingly thin ice because the PIOMAS graph shows that. But, of course, the PIOMAS graph is based on a hypothesis. And, we know too, that when a hypothesis doesn’t have supporting evidence that hypothesis is wrong.
geo says:
August 9, 2010 at 8:53 am
a Carnac the Magnificent hat for Anthony if he hits that close predicting almost a year in advance.
He predicted that last year?
R. Gates says:
August 9, 2010 at 8:15 am
General question, if anybody knows: Where does Joe Bastardi’s “brutally cold N. Hemisphere winter” for this upcoming winter come from? What is the basis? I don’t follow him at all, but I’d be curious to find out his basis for forecasting.
Do research on it. You’ll find out.
jcrabb says:
August 9, 2010 at 9:49 am
The PDO has been moving into a cooler regime for the last 10 years, from the warm phase of 20 years prior and still this period is warmest in the relevant time frame. This seems to suggest the PDO is losing some influence, as Global temperatures should have been heading back towards late 1940′s temp’s when the PDO phase was similar.
You have to take into account El Nino.
DR says:
August 9, 2010 at 9:54 am
An interesting quote from Joe Bastardi:
If you’re wrong you get fired; that’s what the private sector’s about.
If you’re a government global warming scientist and you’re wrong you get peer-review saying you’re right and a government whitewash pass saying you did ‘standard practice’.
Cool pics–
recent relevant–
http://solarcycle24com.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=globalwarming&thread=1179&page=88#52966