What happened in 2005 to Arctic sea ice?

By Steve Goddard

I need help from the readers to determine if 2010 will finish ahead or below 2005 – the red line in the DMI graph.

2010 is currently tracking just below 2005, but note there was a downwards dip in mid-September, 2005. What caused this?

The PIPS video below shows what happened in September, 2005.

In mid-September, strong winds started blowing off the East Siberian and Laptev Seas, which compressed the ice towards the North Pole. This caused the dip seen in the DMI graph.

The images below show the current date in 2005 and 2010 respectively. Note that 2005 had a lot of thin/low concentration ice in the Laptev/Kara Seas which was vulnerable to being blown around by the wind in September. The ice is less extensive, but thicker in that region in 2010.

What do you think? Will 2010 beat 2005? Please explain your reasoning.

Advertisements

215 thoughts on “What happened in 2005 to Arctic sea ice?

  1. Where was the jetstream in sept. 2005, and how hot was moscow-lat russia?

    With all that heat flowing around northern russia, prevailing winds there should drive toward the pole.
    Also, qualitatively, I’ve been hearing a lot about how thick 2010 ice is, but these two images (comparing time for time) show broad expanses of thinner ice in 2010. I would look for those to shore up and thicken due to wind compaction on the russia side and for 2010 to clear 2005 slightly to the negative within 10 days.

  2. Voting on what the weather is going to do eh? I suppose that’s a change from being asked to vote for politicians who claim they can improve the weather and the climate. I’m afraid I can’t vote, my piece of seaweed has gone missing.

  3. Is this Based soley on the Danish Data?

    If so, based on trends, I’d think 2010 would finish above.

    If not, I’d say below.

    Regardless, we all know whats upcoming 12 months from now….. :) Lets see the warmists try to Hide that!

  4. MODERATOR:

    Someone added the words “Arctic Sea Ice” to the title.

    Grammatically that is incorrect. Please change the title to “What Happened in 2005 to Arctic Sea Ice?”

    [Fixed, thanks. ~dbs]

  5. By Steve Goddard

    I need help from the readers to determine if 2010 will finish ahead or below 2005 – the red line in the DMI graph.
    _____

    On the DMI graph, 2010 will finish below 2005 and likely below 2009 as well, but we won’t know for a week or so…

  6. It will beat 2005.

    Here in Englandland, August is our warmest month, a time for buckets and spades on the beach, and the occasional dip in very cold water.

    So here we are in our warm month, and as I take my Labrador Millie for her morning walk across the fields of Shropshire, it is already getting cold, so much so that the fields are covered with very heavy dew, enough to go through the hiking boots.

    My guess, and it is a guess, is that winter will be worse than last year, because it will start early, and a good bet will be that the Highway Authorities will not yet have stocked up on enough salt.

    It would be nice if I were wrong, I could really do with a bit more of that GW stuff, my old friend Arthur Rightis plays me up when it gets cold.

    Pity really that The Met have stopped giving us all a laugh with their seasonal forecasts. After all, by the law of averages, eventually they’d have got one right, and they could have basked in our adulation.

  7. Right now my vote is for it to not reach the 2005 extent. Although I’ve been impressed by the quality of your predictions thus far this year, I’m still worried about it clearing 2009. There are just too many unpredictable factors to say for sure.

    My reasoning for this is purely statistical and relatively poor. I mentioned it in a recent comment in Sea Ice News #17…I’m using the JAXA extent records to predict the final minimum. I know this correlates poorly early in the season, but for 08/10 the R^2 value for the correlation is 0.914. Using 08/10 data, this method predicts 5.08e6 +/- 4.74 e6 km^2 (+/- 95% confidence interval). Yes, tons of uncertainty still. I’d like to improve my fitting methods by combining the JAXA data with other data sets…can I get the data (not graphs) for those somewhere online? I’d really like the 30% extent data or the area data, as those would make good multiparameter fits.

    While I’d love to see it top 2005, I keep reminding myself that it’s only 1 year.

    -Scott

  8. As ice behavior in the Arctic is dependent on weather conditions, attempting to predict which way the wind will be blowing at various points around the Arctic is a task best left to Madam Sofia up the street.

    I believe what one must do is look at probabilities and not attempt to put too fine a point on a prediction. At this point in time, as far as I would be willing to go is to say that I believe that 2010 will finish with more ice than 2009 and indications are good that it will be a 2005-ish year.

    But a change in the weather can change all that in only a few days time.

  9. Arctic air temperatures for 2010 are running well below 2005 temperatures. Therefore I predict that 2010 sea ice extent will exceed that of 2005.

  10. Since 2007, that is some bodacious death spiral right thar! Not. But then the incredibly ignorant folks here at WUWT must be reading the graphs wrong. Now where did I put my AGW-colored glasses, and now that I think about it, it is time for my daily dose of red koolaid with a lemming chaser.

  11. Hmm, looks like the JAXA record was modified overnight and for the 08/10/10 value. With the new value the correlation method is predicting 5.07e6 km^2.

    -Scott

  12. All the heat’s in Russia so it’s lacking at the pole. Jetstreams farther south this year and all… 2010 will have more arctic sea ice at the minimum than 2005. Simplistic logic i know but me no weatherman, just listening to some of them…

  13. My guess would be close or over 2005, based on lower solar activity. You can clearly see the rising trend since 2007. But could you ask Piers Corbyn, he follows solar activity, ocean currents and high-atmosphere turbulence, resulting in pretty accurate weather-predictions.

  14. 2005 was a monster in terms of hurricane activity and looking at the track info

    http://weather.unisys.com/hurricane/atlantic/2005H/index.html

    shows that a lot of tropical heat went north that summer/fall. 2010 is analog for 2005 and 1998 so we might expect a similar result (other things being considered) if the season ramps up as quickly as Dr. Phil, Joe Bastardi and Mark Sudduth have explained.

    What does the ice situation look like for those other years where hurricane activity was high in number and strength? Just proposing a piece of the puzzle.

  15. I’m beginning to think that predicting the fate of Arctic sea ice is akin to predicting where the roulette ball will fall. Just looking at the DMI graph, you have 2010 tracking 2005 for the last few weeks. But for all of June 2010 showed the lowest extent while for the month of April 2010 it showed the highest extent. The within-year variability of the sea ice extent metric makes it extremely problematic to forecats based on which year it is currently tracking.

    Looking at the PIPS images for 2005 and 2010 it seems to me that there is a significant difference in the arctic sea ice extent portrayed. Yet the extent as shown by DMI has 2005 and 2010 on par. Accordingly I would have a hard time interpreting anything from PIPS 2005 that could be applied to the 2010 DMI situation.

    I do find the Arctic sea ice conditions an entertaining and compelling melodrama. There seem to be a broad range of expert and amateur predictions for the sea ice minimum this year, but I have my doubts that we will learn anything from the 2010 results. Most predictions will be wrong, and one or more will be close enough to the mark to be deemed prescient. No matter who gets that brass ring, our understanding of the dynamics of Arctic ice conditions will be no richer.

    Regardless of the outcome, the CAGW alarmists will continue to refer to “dwindling Arctic sea ice”. The 2007 minimum will give years of dividends in ensuring a linear fit that matches the narrative. So 2010 will be spun as confirming the consensus. Accordingly the public understanding of Arctic sea ice conditions will continue to be an order of magnitude below our feeble scientific understanding. *sigh* /rantoff

  16. Forecast! Why? Leave that to IPCC to get wrong. It is the area under the curve that matters. That will give a comparative measure of the amount of energy locked up by the latent heat of freezing. So far, looks like a record anyway.

  17. Right now, the lack of ice going trough the Fram strait is remarkable. If this continues, significant recovery will result.

    More Arctic sea ice freezes every winter than melts every summer. The loss through the Fram strait is what keeps it from building massively (plus a bit more through the Nares strait.) We didn’t lose much this year and that means significant future buildup.

    Also, the Arctic has been quite cloudy recently and this is slowing the melting.

    Does this mean we’ll beat 2005 this year? No; I’d be surprised if that happened.

    But we should beat it next year.

  18. …note there was a downwards dip in mid-September, 2005. What caused this?

    It appears to be a dip because of the convex shape of the curve in the 1st half of Sept.
    Compare the shape of those 2 weeks, to the 2 weeks in the other 4 years.

  19. The mid-September 2005 was a one-time event. Temperatures in Siberia south of the Kara and Laptev Seas are below normal and the ice is relatively thick north of there. Current air temperatures on the ice are at or below freezing. Nothing bad is going to happen to that ice. I expect the 2010 ice to track right along the 2005 line until mid-September, then cross over to positive territory.

  20. I predict 2005 finishing ahead of 2010 by 5 years =)

    But seriously, all years finish about the same. I don’t know why this would be any different.

  21. Tom in Texas says:
    August 11, 2010 at 12:21 pm
    It appears to be a dip because of the convex shape of the curve in the 1st half of Sept.
    ==========================================================

    Agree, I don’t see a dip at all.

  22. I am thinking it will dip below 2005. Possibly even lower, and match 2009 give or take a bit. Why you ask? Well, first off, Joe Bastardi said it would likely be lower this year than last, and the good folks governing us will see that it is at least reported as being so low as to cause a death spiral of overheated polar bears and water chest deep in the Sierra’s.

    Actually, my bet is it will dip below zero much earlier this year, thus slowing the melting, but probably be much windier so who knows… I’ll go with Bastardi.

  23. I’ll put my vote in for exceeding the 2005 extent based on that whanking big ice slab that blocking the outflow of ice.

  24. I don’t know what it’s going to be THERE.

    But I know that HERE in Germany, all signs are indicating an early, COLD, long, harsh winter.

    Mark my words.

    I shall return.

  25. I don’t know about beating 2005 but I am of the opinion that current weather parameter oscillations predict continued ice behavior that points to a possible recovery. So my guess is less melt than last year.

  26. Question, I’ve noticed that my comments are being delayed for moderation by nearly an hour. Is there something wrong?

    [Moderator shortage today. Sorry.]

  27. It will beat 2005.
    The trajectory is coming from further back and is rising towards 2005. By late August it will be past 2005 in extent by a small margin.

    “It’s the jet stream stupid”!!! :-)

  28. My inspired guess would be between ’05 and ’06. Rationale: weak solar activity for three years, La Nina evolving, reversal of the PDO, possible continued negative NAO, and low daily mean temperatures north of 80 degrees (now below freezing).

  29. I believe 2010 will come in just a hair above 2005. How far depends on a couple of factors. The main factor will be wind direction. In September 2005 it appears the winds began to do two things. First, it looks to me that a lot of ice was pushed out to sea off the east coast of Greenland. That loss of ice allowed for added compaction which was caused by those same winds. Right now the winds are very much different than they were this date in 2005. If that continues, there should be considerably less compaction for the remainder of the melt season and less of a push out to sea; Sea ice extent and area should not take the dip seen in 2005. Second, the temperature is below normal. I don’t know what the temperature was for this date in 2005, but I do know that it is (from what we can tell) below normal in the arctic right now. If that trend continues, there should be less melt and an earlier start to the refreeze. Again, sea ice extent and area should not take the dip seen in 2005.
    All that said, if the winds take a sudden shift (something similar to what Bastardi seems to indicate in his updated hurricane prediction), the thinness of the ice could cause a dip to 2009 levels or lower.
    On another note, I was surprised by the different reactions I had to the graphics. In the DMI graph, sea ice extent looks very much in step with 2005. However, when I looked at the PIPS images, it appears that there is a lot less ice than in 2005. Sure, there are a few small areas where the ice is thicker this year, but overall, the ice appears to have been .5 to 1 meter or more thicker in a large chunk of the image. Also, by yet another simple eyeball guesstimate, that slightly thicker ice appears to have covered a larger area. I know you can’t measure extent with the PIPS map, but it looks a little different than what I would have guessed.

  30. Daily totals are still well above 50sk loss a day. Until I see a slowdown of the melt, it projects as beating only 2007.

  31. Steve,

    Looking at the DMI Graph, most of the historic lows occurred in the first 2 weeks of September. Except 2005, when the historic low was in the last 2 weeks of September.

    So to answer your query, ” determine if 2010 will finish ahead or below 2005 “. My prediction is: 2010 will be below 2005 in the first 2 weeks of September, but above 2005 in the second two weeks. But the low-low will be about the same, just at different times.

  32. the dmi arctic temperatures are going slightly further below freezing tonight and are much lower than they were in 2005 at this time.I would be pleased if 2010 finished above 2009 in arctic ice extent but we will have to wait until the ice melt is over before we can be certain of that.

  33. Frederick Michael said:

    “Also, the Arctic has been quite cloudy recently and this is slowing the melting.”

    _______

    This time of year, the cloudiness is not necessarily a factor in keeping temperatures down. Certain type of cloud cover actually keep temperatures warmer by increasing downwelling LW radiation. Clear skies can allow more heat to escape.

  34. I think it will be higher than 2005.

    This is based on a gut feeling… sometimes it’s all we have in this damed science.

  35. simpleseekeraftertruth says:
    August 11, 2010 at 12:14 pm It is the area under the curve that matters. That will give a comparative measure of the amount of energy locked up by the latent heat of freezing.

    That’s good physics! Knowing the equations of motion for the problem at hand is required to understand! It is amusing to observe the complete lack of understanding by most “experts”, IPCC, New Scientists and New York Times:

    http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/science/topics/globalwarming/index.html

    Arctic Melt Unnerves the Experts
    By ANDREW C. REVKIN
    Scientists are unnerved by this summer’s massive polar ice melt, its implications and their ability to predict it.

  36. My vote is that it will beat 2005 because of an ealier freeze up.

    Comparing the temp north of 80th parallel of 2005 and 2010, the temp for 2010 has already crossed the freezing line. 2005 follows the average curve, and does not cross the freezing line for another several days.

    IF this trend in temp continues, I’d speculate that your gonig to see the extent and area lines begin to flatten out, and maybe even begin grow a tad, making the assumption that lower tems and below freezing temps leads to ice formation, and by default, a halt in ice melt.

  37. Steve,

    Quick question – when it comes to the end of the melt season, which source will be used to determine who was closest to the ‘minimum ice extent.’ NSIDC, JAXA, DMI? I feel there needs to be some sort of standard metric for this, else people will claim to use the one that most closely matches their prediction (I fear its already too late to do this… should have been done long ago).

  38. R. Gates

    In order for clouds to produce downwelling LW radiation, they had to have been first warmed by upwelling LW radiation. Not much of that over the ice, is there?

  39. Based on the historical data for the last several years, I’d have to posit the theory that 2010 will end up slightly above 2005. The warmest months are coming to an end, and by the end of December I could see a small uptick just enough to nudge it ahead of 2005. The 2007 line shows a major reduction during August to October, moreso than any other line on the graph. November and December are big gain months for sea ice, and based on the similarities to 2005 I’d say 2010 will end up slightly to very slightly above once the final tally is finished, based on the recovery of the 2007 line during those months.

  40. I predict that … there WILL still be ice in the Arctic this Winter, contrary to what too many believe!

  41. Here’s the graph I find most interesting: http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/meant80n.uk.php

    It shows the average air temp above 80 degrees north by DMI (Danish Meteorological Institute) and on that page you can also view the temps for prior years back to 1958. You can look at every single year and not find a summer with temps as cold as this year (though someone previously was kind enough to point out that the records back in the 60’s and 70’s were probably pretty skimpy and haphazard.)

    As I said in a comment to another post, my understanding of summer temps is that the massive ice volume holds air temps to levels just above zero, much as ice cubes hold a glass of water at 0 degrees C until all the ice is gone. Consider this though. You can apply a significant heat to the water and as long as the ice is present the temp stays relatively constant. The ice just melts faster. Thus, while the ice is present the temp of the water isn’t a good indicator of how much heat energy is entering the water. However, once the glass of water starts to refreeze, that’s a very good indication that the heat source that was melting the ice has dissipated.

    Well, in the arctic, the air is the water in the above discussion, and year after year there’s enough heat present to hold the air above the freezing point during most of the entire summer months. How much heat? You can’t tell, although a good measure of ice volume in the arctic (which we don’t have) could tell you (except for waves, etc., further confusing the issue.) However, just as with the glass of water, when the air temp in the arctic is allowed to go below freezing, the clear implication is that the heat source has diminished significantly. No matter how much heat was being supplied by the sun during the summer, temps are constrained by the ice and you can’t really tell what the situation is concerning the amount of heat present. Now, though, we’ve reached the point where whatever the heat supplied was, it’s dropped below the level needed to warm the air above freezing, and it’s happened 10-15 days earlier than normal.

    Given this situation, I would be very nervous holding a forecast of a significant melt from this point forward. But maybe the temps will soon rise for a few weeks at least? Right now though, there are three things that agree with this being the beginning of a re-freezing of the arctic. 1) the melt pond in the camera shot at the north pole is not only clearly frozen over, but appears to be shrinking. 2) The 15% Ice Extent, Norsex graph on the Sea Ice Page has leveled off for at least the past three days, and 3) The Ice Area, Norsex graph right below it shows an actual increase in ice area over the past few days. Is this just weather? Probably, but right now it looks to me to be colder than normal in the Arctic regardless of what computer-generated anomalies might indicate.

    But then, I’m not a scientist. I’m just trusting the DMI to be able to correctly log and average temperature readings. And, after all, isn’t temperature the reason we keep looking at all these proxies? Well, it appears to be unusually cold up there right now and has been all summer. For that matter, it froze longer this spring, and it’s apparently colder than normal, so why not freeze earlier this fall? That said, I have no specific forecast because I have no idea what the weather’s going to be in the Arctic for the next month.

  42. Well I’ll just wait until the 2010 Catlin Ice Survey Team gets there along with their oil drums and finds a thin enough place to bore their sample hole to measure the ice thickness. Do they know they could save some money by just going back to where they simply tossed their oil drums out of the tent last year; and left them fouling up the place on the ice.

    In the meantime I’ll just watch the JAXA slow motion movie of the event; and make a little side bet on Steve’s numbers.

  43. Invariant:
    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/08/11/what-happened-in-2005-arctic-sea-ice/#comment-454451

    Your link leads to a page with an article that says
    “Updated May 20, 2010

    By ANDREW C. REVKIN

    and under it, it leads tohttp://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/02/science/earth/02arct.html?_r=1
    and that article says
    “By ANDREW C. REVKIN
    Published: October 2, 2007”

    So it looks like Andrew C. Revkin just recycles his 2007 material because, well, melt season is melt season, can’t let a sea ice recovery get in the way of a good story, right? At least he’s honest enough not to extrapolate a virtual 2008, 2009, 2010 with his 2007 flash animation. So, not quite GISS level, Mr. Revkin, not ruthless enough.

  44. Way ahead of 2005, might exceed 2006->

    1) The Sun has been at its lowest output since the Dalton minimum for 3 years.
    2) The Pacific has given up its heat: El Nino is now La Nina. Time lag for Earth cooling, about 3 to 4 years for .05C (My simple Earth model).
    3) The heat flow from the Equator to the Poles, instantaneously, has decreased due to the instantaneous Sun’s output reduction. Less heat in, warm Arctic due to years of active Sun, same rate of Arctic heat out; Arctic cools longer to stabilization.
    4) The Atlantic is in a temperature reducing phase (contrary to the views of the oscillation folks). Again, lack of Solar energy.
    5) Lack of Hurricanes is an indicator of cooling, due to lack of Solar energy.
    6) Early onset of cold Arctic temperatures, well beneath the average for this time of year.

    The Antarctic is our Winter model. It is on a cold, freezing rampage!!! This year far exceeds the “average”.

  45. The little white lies, dishonesties and misrepresentations by the NYT and the BBC that i now see nearly every day reek of one thing.

    Desperation.

  46. My bet is on beating 2005. Where I live (the north of The Netherlands) it has been rather chilly of late. We’ve had a white christmas (quite unusual) and rather a long, cold and snowy winter. Summer hasn’t been much to speak of either; except for two weeks around the finals of the soccer-WC in June which were hot, it’s been more like fall during July and August so far.
    Adding to this the cool picture of the globe I get through this site I think the table might be turning in favour of those thinking for themselves. My hopes are up. Even though I don’t like cold weater ;-)
    Keep up the excellent work!

  47. If Big Al arrives up in the Arctic to see all the ice melting, freeze-up should start immediately…snic/

    2005=2010 just a guess.

  48. I’m not discounting the human factor. In my part of the world, if there is ice or snow underfoot, we put salt on it and it melts and becomes less slippery. Health and safety regulations demand safer environments. With all the observers up in the Arctic, don’t they all have the same human needs – not to slip over in icy conditions? The DMI chart may bear his out – ice and salt together melts at a lower temperature. So lower temperatures, less ice, more observers, better health and safety, no climate change… it all makes sense to me!

  49. Reply to the ‘Cold Englishman’
    The dear old Met Office seasonal forecasts were extremely useful and I shall miss them . Of course you have to know the code to use when you read thier forecast , it is of course the opposite of what they say its going to be , once this is sussed out their forecasts are extremely useful!!

  50. Hmm.. By sleight of hand, here on Wotsup, DMI’s graph has become the ‘official’ arctic sea ice standard. Worrying.

    DMI have spawned none other than Eigil Friis-Christensen, Henrik Svensmark, and K. Lassen, whose ‘research’ has crashed and burned!

    Google them and join the dots. Champions of the “its the sun and cosmic rays, man” fraternity. If you visit DMI’s homepage, don’t expect to find details of their exploits posted in the English version. Thats only in Danish for domestic consumption!

    It’s infectious!! I’m beginning to sense a conspiracy here (too)

  51. Since the 2010 line is below the 2005 line, the niave forecast is that it will stay below it. To improve on that forecast would require actual information about what is happening there. There isn’t enough info in the graph to say much more than it’s now below the 2005 line and based on that graph is slightly more than 50% likely to stay below it, but I have no confidence in predictions based on that graph with no other evidence.

  52. crosspatch says:
    August 11, 2010 at 11:41 am

    I believe what one must do is look at probabilities and not attempt to put too fine a point on a prediction.

    Why not? Let’s have some fun.

  53. John S. says:
    August 11, 2010 at 11:41 am
    Arctic air temperatures for 2010 are running well below 2005 temperatures. Therefore I predict that 2010 sea ice extent will exceed that of 2005

    Seems like a good idea, if the winds cooperate.

  54. Dave says:
    August 11, 2010 at 1:12 pm
    Daily totals are still well above 50sk loss a day. Until I see a slowdown of the melt, it projects as beating only 2007.”

    50,000 sq km per day is not uncommon for a few days at this time of year. Look at that to drop markedly in the next 7 days. Going through the regions on Cryosphere Today most of the ice loss for the past few days has come from the Canadian Archipelago and the Greenland Seas. In all other regions ice loss has either stopped or extent is already starting to increase.

    Certainly, neither the East Siberian or Kara Seas are showing ice loss, in fact the East Siberian is showing a slight increase. I would anticipate we’ll be seeing losses as low as 30k within days and potentially even an extent gain within 1 week.

  55. David W

    The “ice loss” in the Greenland Sea is because the flow of ice out the Fram Strait has for all intents and purposes shut down. In other words, it is retention rather than loss of ice.

  56. Ed Caryl says:
    August 11, 2010 at 12:28 pm

    The mid-September 2005 was a one-time event. Temperatures in Siberia south of the Kara and Laptev Seas are below normal and the ice is relatively thick north of there. Current air temperatures on the ice are at or below freezing. Nothing bad is going to happen to that ice. I expect the 2010 ice to track right along the 2005 line until mid-September, then cross over to positive territory

    Fun prediction. And easy to understand.

  57. Deanster

    I tend to agree with you. It looks like 2010 may be the shortest melt season on record. It had the latest maximum and may well also have the earliest minimum.

  58. stevengoddard says:
    August 11, 2010 at 1:55 pm
    R. Gates

    In order for clouds to produce downwelling LW radiation, they had to have been first warmed by upwelling LW radiation. Not much of that over the ice, is there?
    ________

    Plenty of heat coming off th warmer than normal water temps. There is a potential link to this warmer open water and general changes in Arctic weather patterns, from storminess to changes in the Arctic Dipole Anomaly. I believe Julienne is studying this, and many others are as well. You might even want to look into it yourself. Lot’s of links out there…

  59. latitude says:
    August 11, 2010 at 12:37 pm
    Tom in Texas says:
    August 11, 2010 at 12:21 pm
    It appears to be a dip because of the convex shape of the curve in the 1st half of Sept.
    ==========================================================

    Agree, I don’t see a dip at all.

    ===========================================================

    Winds were taking a big inhale in the first half of the month and let out a big exhale in the second half. :-)

  60. Arctic ice is not going anywhere in my lifetime, that’s my only bet, and I don’t live anywhere near there so I don’t pay too much attention to it. I will defer to your fine analysis of that part of the world beings that you’ve done such a great job so far!

    Being a tropical fish and all, this time of year the East coast of Africa near the Cape Verde Islands has my undivided attention. And it’s been pretty quiet so far (fingers crossed), but looking at today’s global IR and all that moisture coming across the Indian Ocean for the first time this year things might be changing soon. Global IR montage:

    http://www.nrlmry.navy.mil/sat-bin/display10.cgi?SIZE=full&PHOT=yes&AREA=global/stitched&PROD=ir&TYPE=ssmi&NAV=global&DISPLAY=Latest&ARCHIVE=Latest&CGI=global.cgi&CURRENT=20100811.1800.multisat.ir.stitched.Global.x.jpg&MOSAIC_SCALE=15

    Good luck with your study – looks to me like you’ve been right on the mark so far!

  61. David W. says:

    “Certainly, neither the East Siberian or Kara Seas are showing ice loss, in fact the East Siberian is showing a slight increase. I would anticipate we’ll be seeing losses as low as 30k within days and potentially even an extent gain within 1 week.”

    ___

    I would suggest that you are completely misunderstanding what is happening right now. The slow down in extent was based on divergence in the ice, which only spread the ice out and reduced concentrations, but did not necessarily (and most likely did not at all) reduce melt rates. Ice spread out in the E. Siberian and Kara Seas. The Kara in particular has seen lower concentrations since April with a big drop in June and warmer temps all summer.

    http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/recent365.anom.region.7.html

    The possibility of the sea ice extent beginning to go up within a week seems remote at best. This is the danger and inaccuracy of mistaking a slow down in sea ice extent decline for a slow down in melting…it just isn’t necessarily true.

  62. This is fairly tough. I don’t think you can talk about the job downwards in late September of 2005 without talking about the jog upwards in early September of 2005 as well. Smooth them both out and see what you see. I suspect if you smooth out the anomalous jog up in early September that the jog down doesn’t really look like a jog down anymore.

    Which leads me to believe a likely scenario is that a short cold-snap in early September somewhere around the rim of the central core got some ice reforming in that area, and when it passed that babiest of baby ice disappeared in days.

  63. If you analyze everything there is –which we know of and about– then determining what happens next isn’t such a big deal.

    The ‘warmist–propagandists’ will crow, but in the end they will freeze to death.

    Call it ‘cold comfort.’

  64. Village Idiot says:
    August 11, 2010 at 2:42 pm

    DMI have spawned none other than Eigil Friis-Christensen, Henrik Svensmark, and K. Lassen, whose ‘research’ has crashed and burned!

    You were serious? Or joking? If you were serious would you provide the science, meaning data, that shows their work is in this state? I have never heard one shred of what you said here. So I hope you are not one of those who reads something on a blog of poor reputaion for science, or worse yet, just makes things up, and then comes to blogs like this one and types it out in a comment what they found at that blog or made up on their own.

    Please give proof for your claim. Then I will know you were right.

  65. stevengoddard says:
    August 11, 2010 at 3:27 pm
    R. Gates

    The vast majority of the Arctic is covered with ice and the other areas generally have below normal SSTs. Where do you get your ideas from?
    _______

    Hmmm….at the peak NH ice extent this year we had over 14 million sq. km, and now we’re down to close to 6….by my vast math skills, that would mean we have 8 million sq. km. or so of open water. Last I checked, 8 was more than 6, but if you want to say the vast majority of the Arctic is covered with ice with below normal SST’s, despite graphs like this that say differently:

    You go right ahead. Call me old fashioned, but I’ll stick with real data and my simple math, thanks.

  66. geo

    Normally the minimum occurs in early-mid September. That happened in 2005, but strong winds (visible in the video) caused some unusual compression late in the month.

  67. Invariant

    What you see in the Nansen graphs is meltponds freezing up, which reduces the error in the summer ice measurements.It is not an actual gain in extent.

  68. R. Gates, you are constantly bringing up the Arctic Dipole. You seem to think it is very possible it is becoming more frequent. I am of the opinion you have precious little evidence of such a trend and no hypothesized mechanism related to CO2 enhanced warming leading to your suggested increase. You are reaching for straws the way some reach for the Sun and outer planets.

    This is about the only evidence I have found so far and it supports my contention that you have not a leg to stand on.

    “James Overland of the NOAA Pacific Marine Environmental Laboratory in Seattle, Washington has taken a close look at patterns of atmospheric circulation in recent summers. Overland notes that the periods June through August 2007 and June and July 2009 both saw an unusual atmospheric pattern of sea level pressure, with higher pressure on the Alaskan side of the Arctic and lower pressure on the Eurasian side. This pressure difference brought warm air into the central Arctic and transported sea ice towards the Atlantic. Historically, such a pattern is a rare event—before 2007, it only occurred twice in 30 years. Normally there is little difference in pressure across the Arctic during summer, and winds are slack.

    This rare condition may result from the convergence of the three main patterns of climate variability: the Arctic Oscillation (AO) climate pattern, which features either high or low pressure over most of the Arctic; the positive phase of the Pacific North American (PNA) pattern, which is characterized by low pressure over the Bering Sea and high pressure over the Canadian Rockies; and the Arctic dipole pattern, which features high pressure on one side of the Arctic and low pressure on the other. In 2007 and 2009 all three patterns have been in play. A clue to the cause of these unusual conditions comes from the wind flow in the middle atmosphere. Normally winds flow in a counter-clockwise direction around the central Arctic Ocean, a flow known as the polar vortex. In the summers of 2007 and 2009 the polar vortex shifted to mostly to the Eurasian side of the Arctic, allowing higher pressures to develop on the Alaskan side. Scientists are now studying whether this dipole pattern will become more common in the future and whether the loss of summer sea ice itself is helping to make this pattern more frequent.”

    From: http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/2009/081809.html

  69. above 2005 and 2006 for various reasons mainly initial ice concentration and sun activity etc….

  70. “”” R. Gates says:
    August 11, 2010 at 3:40 pm
    stevengoddard says:
    August 11, 2010 at 3:27 pm
    R. Gates

    The vast majority of the Arctic is covered with ice and the other areas generally have below normal SSTs. Where do you get your ideas from?
    _______

    ……………………..
    You go right ahead. Call me old fashioned, but I’ll stick with real data and my simple math, thanks. “””

    Well I wouldn’t be in so much of a hurry to diss Steve’s comment.

    For a start; all the literature I have been reading about earth climate lists “The Arctic as being everything North or +60 deg; and the Antarctic as being everything South of -60 deg.

    And apparently back in the 1850s till about the turn of the century; I seem to recall that there were a whopping 12 “weather” stations in the Arctic; and that number grew to something like 86 over the years; and then apparently they started to 86 some of those stations so the number is now something like 72; maybe due to the Soviet implosion.

    But in any case; that results in there being more land in the Arctic than ocean; so even with an ice free Arctic ocean; there is more land to capture snow and ice from all of that evaporation from the open sea; so I don’t have any problem with there being more ice or snow in the Arctic that open water.

    The Antarctic on the other hand contains more water than Land.

  71. Marcia obviously hasn’t checked her background, and hasn’t a clue.

    Steve Goddard,
    Denmark is a small, insignificant country. DMI is part of that. They are holed up just over the tracks from my mother-in-law for goodness sake (check g. earth).

    How do you make an impact? Be different. Go against the flow, then you get noticed! Lomborg has cottened onto it! You just don’t get the Danish psyche, but you lap up their stats. because they reinforce your agenda.

    Its a strange little parallel world you’re constucting here where everything is getting just colder and colder.

    Things look different out here..

  72. “”” R. Gates says:
    August 11, 2010 at 3:14 pm
    stevengoddard says:
    August 11, 2010 at 1:55 pm
    R. Gates

    In order for clouds to produce downwelling LW radiation, they had to have been first warmed by upwelling LW radiation. Not much of that over the ice, is there?
    ________

    Plenty of heat coming off th warmer than normal water temps. There is a potential link to this warmer open water and general changes in Arctic weather patterns, from storminess to changes in the Arctic Dipole Anomaly. I believe Julienne is studying this, and many others are as well. You might even want to look into it yourself. Lot’s of links out there…

    So I know all about dipoles; studied a lot of that during my Radio-Physics Days.

    So just what is “The Arctic Dipole” ; and then what would the “Arctic Dipole Anomaly” be; other than something wrong with the Arctic Dipole.

    Two “whats” comprise an Arctic Dipole ?

  73. stevengoddard says:
    August 11, 2010 at 3:59 pm
    R. Gates

    You seem to have forgotten where the ice loss has occurred – outside of the Arctic Basin.

    http://climateinsiders.files.wordpress.com/2010/07/nsidcapril052010vsjuly1620101.jpg

    You beat me to it Steven.

    And R Gates, I am not misunderstanding what is happening in the East Siberian and Kara Seas. I am also looking at the NSIDC sea ice concentrations. If the ice is spread out and thin in those areas it certainly isnt particularly showing on the NSIDC concentration maps.

    If anything, looking at the buoy movements, I would potentially be expecing to see some compaction of the ice in the East Siberian. The Kara Sea has already lost its ice so will be contributing no further to ice loss. The Laptev Sea is probably a big question mark due to the absence of any buoys there.

    I would say given prevailing conditions, including ice drift and concentrations, the only real area that may still see signifcant loss is in the Beaufort Sea. The strange thing is the NSIDC concentration map still has a fair bit of ice left there whilst Cryosphere Today seem to indicate only about 100,000 sq km.

    So, no I don’t think divergence will play a major part in what we see happeing for the remainder of the melt.

  74. stevengoddard says:
    August 11, 2010 at 3:59 pm
    R. Gates

    You seem to have forgotten where the ice loss has occurred – outside of the Arctic Basin.
    _______

    Very slippery of you Steve…your first post said the “Arctic” and now you’ve changed it to the Arctic BASIN, which has a very specfic meaning very different that just Arctic. I see, very clever. I hope the more astute reader will pick up on the significance of that little extra word. We were never talking about the Arctic Basin, but about the Arctic.

  75. Idiot: You’re using classic alarmist propaganda techniques. Speak in unsubstantiated generalities and dismiss requests for specifics with a “go find it yourself” response. Are you a sock puppet for JRomm, Tamino, WMConnolley, GASchmidt, or KDPetersen, perhaps?

  76. David W says:
    August 11, 2010 at 3:02 pm

    Certainly, neither the East Siberian or Kara Seas are showing ice loss, in fact the East Siberian is showing a slight increase. I would anticipate we’ll be seeing losses as low as 30k within days and potentially even an extent gain within 1 week.

    Hmmm, that would be interesting. That would mean 2010 would end up #1 in DMi. Is the dark horse going to sprint to first down the final stretch? It would be awesome. But I’ll be very happy with passing 2005 into #2.

  77. stevengoddard says:
    August 11, 2010 at 3:12 pm

    Deanster

    I tend to agree with you. It looks like 2010 may be the shortest melt season on record. It had the latest maximum and may well also have the earliest minimum.

    What sublime happiness it would be if 2010 even passed 2006. ;-)!!!!

    But I know it’s a long shot.

  78. Village Idiot

    You diss DMI … so then … what proof do you have that whoever you call the authority is any more pure?? We KNOW that anything from the US Government Groups is as bad or even worse than anything from DMI … and they are not from a dinky insignificant country. As I see it, everyone hangs on the data that most supports their perspective … and that most certainly applies to the IPCC, who, btw, are the most agenda driven of anyone.

    I look at all the data. I look at Cryo, DMI, Norsex, etc etc etc. IMO, the truth lies somewhere in between all the flawed data that is agenda driven. I’m really thankfull for people like Steve Goddard, who dares to look at things differently. Are you afraid he might actually discover something???? .. and thus bring your house of cards to the ground?

    IMO, we live in Extrordinary Times with regards to Climate Studie. For 30 years we’ve studied modern climate from a one dimensional perspective, with high solar activity and a positive PDO. We are just now collecting the DATA associated with different Natural Conditions, low solar, and a negative PDO. I’m particularly interested in the impact of the A-Index .. for whatever impact it may have. I’ve asked Anthony to do an update on it, as while I visit Solarcycle24.com daily, I don’t really understand much of it without some Svalguard or somebody who actually knows what a fricken A-index is.

    Anyway … I’m sticking to my prediction, According to Norsex, Cryosphere, as well as the “dinky” little DMI data, the point of refreeze and end of melt has moved earlier each year since 2007, progressively from 2008 to 2009. The Mnimum has progressively been greater as well.. Baring the massive wind driven blowout of 2007, we see that 2006 refreeze started earlier than 2005 as well, and it beat 2005 on every metric. Couple that with the early drop in temp on DMI …..

    As in my earlier post, I predict an even earlier refreeze, which will ultimately allow 2010 to surpass 2005, and possibly 2006.

  79. Goodness. Dismissing an entire country is pretty hubristic in my book and is a terrible example of scientific debate technique.

    As for my “here”, La Nina has turned our normal Summer into a “not Summer”. We are sitting in what seems like more Autumn or Spring weather than Summer. This is now 4 summers in a row of crops struggling to mature. Weather can do that. It’s pattern variations can last quite a few years before another pattern emerges.

    The pattern of ice loss in the Arctic has not gotten beyond what I consider to be a weather-related length of time. And besides, each Summer’s ice loss has correlated weather pattern variations that explain it quite well.

    Are you saying that the weather pattern variations on the ground do not and that something else does? You won’t convince me of your position until you explain to me how the weather pattern variations clearly documented and readily available to the public could not have been the cause of the last 10 years worth of ice behavior.

  80. Invariant says:
    August 11, 2010 at 3:32 pm

    According to the Nansen Environmental and Remote Sensing Center ice extent is now increasing:

    There has been a turn upward each year since 2007. But it happens earlier each year.

    I may not have used the specific graph you were referring to. Did I?

  81. stevengoddard says:
    August 11, 2010 at 3:59 pm

    R. Gates

    You seem to have forgotten where the ice loss has occurred – outside of the Arctic Basin

    It may not be that he has forgotten but just that he doesn’t understand.

  82. On what grounds do you say it is tracking 2005. It looks to me much more like it is tracking 2009. A least squares difference measure over the past few weeks would show it as much closer to 2009 than 2005 as the two graphs are sitting almost on top of each other.

  83. Wow at the DMI temps. They do appear to now be aligning with the massive cooldown that some global models have been predicting for the past month or so. Joe Bastardi showed a number of weeks back what to expect by Winter in the Arctic and the DMI temps seem to show the onset of what was predicted.

    The coming week will be extraordinarily interesting to see what eventuates. Even some pro-AGW sites are now starting to bemoan the fact that coming weather conditions may be not be conducive to substantial further ice loss.

    For my part I think were too far in now to see anything much above a 5.5 million sq km extent (as predicted by Steven many months ago). Having said this I wouldn’t rule out the possibility that this summers melt season will comes to a premature halt when compared to the 8 years that JAXA has previously measured. Whose to say if JAXA data went back 30 years that we wouldnt have seen a mere 500,000 sq km loss for the last month of the melt season. Or perhaps even a minimum extent reached by the 1st September.

    Its interesting we measure the anomaly against a 30 year average but we don’t have a real gauge with regards what happens from say 10th August onwards beyond the 8 years of JAXA data. (i guess the data is probably out there but only the JAXA data is readily available from my perspective).

    The thing to remember is that we do only have 8 years of JAXA data that says the minimum additional melt from this point forward is likely to be no lower than 1 million sq km. The DMI data goes back a substantial way with regards temps North of 80N and you’d be very hard pressed to find a season in the records where the temp has dropped below zero at such an early stage.

    This melt season with its early rapid loss in May/June followed by the massive slowdown in July and now the late season decline in temps, has been truly fascinating to follow. You have to be grateful that so many eyes are monitoring events as they unfold.

  84. Village Idiot says:
    August 11, 2010 at 4:16 pm

    Denmark is a small, insignificant country. DMI is part of that. They are holed up just over the tracks from my mother-in-law for goodness sake (check g. earth).

    I knew, I ABSOLUTELY KNEW it was only a matter of a very short time before DMi would begin to be attacked with mindless assertions.

    Global warming rules:

    1. Never discuss the science.

    2. Attack the man. (or institution, agency, university, study, data, whatever is needed)

    3. Repeat 1 & 2 until you feel you’ve won the argument and have distracted people from reality.

  85. Dave says:
    August 11, 2010 at 1:12 pm

    Daily totals are still well above 50sk loss a day. Until I see a slowdown of the melt, it projects as beating only 2007.

    At the time of computation, the most recent JAXA 15% extent data available was for 08/10. In the 7 days leading up to that, average ice losses (km^2) were:
    2005 = 65246
    2006 = 53996
    2007 = 83147
    2008 = 80737
    2009 = 48571
    2010 = 54487

    Thus, 2009 decisively beats 2010, 2006 is just a touch better, and 2010 decisively beats all the other years. Thus, it left 2007 even more this past week, gained a lot of ground on 2008, and gained moderate ground on 2005.

    In the upcoming 7 days, averages are:
    2005 = 52254
    2006 = 40871
    2007 =47589
    2008 =71853
    2009 = 53529

    Thus, ~50000 this past week on average isn’t bad, and even in the upcoming week it’s better than normal and, if it continues at 50000/day, it will gain ~153000 km^2 on 2008 (putting it 82700 ahead of 2008 at the week’s end). If Steve is right and 2010 tracks 2006 very closely (as it did this past week, almost to the digit), then at the end of the week 2010 will be ahead of 2008 by 147000, behind 2009 by 126000, and behind 2005 by 57000 (all according to JAXA records).

    -Scott

  86. Pamela Gray says:
    August 11, 2010 at 5:23 pm

    As for my “here”, La Nina has turned our normal Summer into a “not Summer”. We are sitting in what seems like more Autumn or Spring weather than Summer. This is now 4 summers in a row of crops struggling to mature.

    If you’re in the NW United States I think it also has something to do with that dark blue and purple body of water next to you:

  87. Village Idiot says:

    “Denmark is a small, insignificant country. DMI is part of that. They are holed up just over the tracks from my mother-in-law for goodness sake (check g. earth).”

    I guesse you missed the fact that the whole of Greenland is ruled by (and therefore part of) Denmark, making it one of the larger countries of the world, and one with rather a large interest in Arctic conditions.

    Still, no need to let the facts get in the way of a strongly held opinion……….

  88. R. Gates says:
    August 11, 2010 at 1:37 pm
    Frederick Michael said:
    “Also, the Arctic has been quite cloudy recently and this is slowing the melting.”
    _______
    This time of year, the cloudiness is not necessarily a factor in keeping temperatures down. Certain type of cloud cover actually keep temperatures warmer by increasing downwelling LW radiation. Clear skies can allow more heat to escape.

    You’re right but I said, “slowing the melting,” not, “lowering the temperature.” The melting is partly driven by the sunlight itself, not just temperature. The temp might be a degree or two higher on a cloudy day but the “night and day” difference in the sunlight is a larger factor.

    In the winter, the radiative cooling effects would be dominant. Hmmmm; maybe that’s why the winter temps are so erratic here:

    http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/meant80n.uk.php

  89. …note there was a downwards dip in mid-September, 2005. What caused this?

    The declination of the moon.

  90. The wish-upon-a-star thread!

    So I take it that besting 2006 is now “officially” off the table?

    And since 2005 is the next highest, but only ahead of 2009 by 65,312 km^2, in terms of minima, and that 2005 virtually tracks right on top of 2009 for the next 11 days, let’s discuss just 2005, and let’s not discuss 2009, or even 2008 heaven forbid.

    It’s almost a given that this will be the shortest melt season ever (JAXA 2003-2010 inclusive), otherwise the minimum would have to occur on, or after September 28, 2010.

    But wishing for the shortest melt season ever, may produce the largest Arctic sea ice extent loss rate (km^2/day) ever (JAXA 2003-2010 inclusive).

    You might want to reconsider what you wish for, as it might not be what the warmist genie hands you.

    REPLY: Junior, Have a look at the DMI temperature graph. It’s hitting the 0C line again, and it looks like there’s been only a short period where it was above normal climatology line. In fact it’s well below it, and below the 0C line too, unless you want to argue about that again. It seems temperature doesn’t correlate well to “melt”. Yes, be careful what you wish for.- Anthony

  91. Steven Goddard,

    to learn more about Arctic ice you could talk to Inuit Indians. I saw Richard Lindzen on video say that Inuits have several words for wind in the Arctic. I suppose they have several words for ice, currents, etc. I think you’d learn things from them that you couldn’t find in text books, graphs, blogs, etc. In fact, i’m wondering if they already can tell what ice minimum will be this year and where it’s headed this winter.

    video of Richard Lindzen mentioning briefly the Inuit at the end:

  92. Let’s just say that Village Idiot has lived up to his moniker. In other scientific news, sociologists have discovered that in certain backwards places in our World it takes a village to raise an idiot. In more sophisticated societies, we have idiots raising villages.

  93. EFS_Junior says:
    August 11, 2010 at 6:55 pm
    The wish-upon-a-star thread!
    …….
    But wishing for the shortest melt season ever, may produce the largest Arctic sea ice extent loss rate (km^2/day) ever (JAXA 2003-2010 inclusive).”

    Hmm yeah. A late start and early end to the melt season produces the largest extent loss rate ever. Who could have guessed?

    My question is so what?

  94. J. Knight says:
    August 11, 2010 at 7:01 pm
    …… In other scientific news, sociologists have discovered that in certain backwards places in our World it takes a village to raise an idiot. In more sophisticated societies, we have idiots raising villages.

    That’s the funniest thing I’ve heard all day!!!
    :-) .. Thanks for the laugh.

  95. REPLY: Junior, Have a look at the DMI temperature graph. It’s hitting the 0C line again, and it looks like there’s been only a short period where it was above normal climatology line. In fact it’s well below it, and below the 0C line too, unless you want to argue about that again. It seems temperature doesn’t correlate well to “melt”. Yes, be careful what you wish for.- Anthony

    DMI is a weather prediction model, last I checked.

    And yes, I’ve been keeping track of it on a daily basis.

    The DMI modeled temperatures have currently used four different weather forecast models, with less and less initialization datasets as we go back further in time (e. g. much larger statistical error bars for 1958 vs 2010, for example, we know this to be true as there were no weather satellites in 1958), the four different weather models have been; ERA-40, T511, T799, and T1279.

    I’d SWAG that given the horizontal and vertical grid resolutions, that actual observational data comprises only a very small fraction (<< 1%) of total node points used in a typical model run.

    From the 2002 dataset;

    we have a direct comparison between ERA-40 and T511 weather models.

    Do you see a difference? Is ERA-40, on average higher than T511? The answer is obvious and there appears to be a negative bias in T511 vs ERA-40.

    That much we do know.

    You do realize that DMI has something called ERA-70 in the planning stages? I'll assume that this is to acquire a modeled weather dataset that should remove any biases that do exist between the four different weather forecast model datasets.

    You think?

    REPLY: Apparently you missed this post: https://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/07/28/giss-arctic-vs-dmi-arctic-differences-in-method/

    …and it seems that the DMI 80N temp forecast model, using lots of near real time data, is borne out by this observation and data:

    The melt pond has refrozen.

    The data from that station shows the temp slipping below 0C the last few days, currently -1.0°C

    http://psc.apl.washington.edu/northpole/PAWS_atmos_recent.html

    Seems spot on to me.

    – Anthony

  96. George E. Smith says:
    August 11, 2010 at 2:10 pm

    In the meantime I’ll just watch the JAXA slow motion movie of the event; and make a little side bet on Steve’s numbers.

    The latest probability-odds on 2010’s ice exceeding 2009’s are 35% at https://www.intrade.com

    Matt says:
    August 11, 2010 at 1:48 pm

    Quick question – when it comes to the end of the melt season, which source will be used to determine who was closest to the ‘minimum ice extent.’ NSIDC, JAXA, DMI? I feel there needs to be some sort of standard metric for this, else people will claim to use the one that most closely matches their prediction (I fear its already too late to do this… should have been done long ago).

    FWIW, Intrade uses JAXA.

  97. David W says:
    August 11, 2010 at 7:17 pm
    EFS_Junior says:
    August 11, 2010 at 6:55 pm
    The wish-upon-a-star thread!
    …….
    But wishing for the shortest melt season ever, may produce the largest Arctic sea ice extent loss rate (km^2/day) ever (JAXA 2003-2010 inclusive).”

    Hmm yeah. A late start and early end to the melt season produces the largest extent loss rate ever. Who could have guessed?

    My question is so what?

    ____________________________________________________________

    Same goes for the short melt season.

    So what?

    As we all know that March sea ice extent was, in fact, on very thin ice indeed, vis-a-vis May/June record loss rates of almost entirely very thin 1st year ice.

    So what indeed,

  98. 118 comments since 11:00 this morning. These Arctic ice posts are hot as a pistol!

  99. Jack,

    The reason why we are able to make accurate forecasts is because – unlike places like NSIDC, The Met Office, GISS, etc. – we are not encumbered by a prejudice that “something” fundamental has changed.

    Prejudice makes it impossible to think clearly.

  100. Given all the very reduced ice concentrations in the Beaufort and Chukchi Seas, I suspect the ice concentration will be below 2009.

  101. REPLY: Apparently you missed this post: https://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/07/28/giss-arctic-vs-dmi-arctic-differences-in-method/

    …and it seems that the forecast model, using lots of near real time data, is borne out by this observation:

    The melt pond has refrozen.

    The data from that station shows the temp slipping below 0C the last few days, currently -1.0°C

    http://psc.apl.washington.edu/northpole/PAWS_atmos_recent.html

    Seems spot on to me.

    – Anthony

    _____________________________________________________________

    No, I saw it, just don’t care to much about global average temperature, much more interested in temperature anomilies in the NH summer in the Arctic primary melt season zones, N80+ is not currently a primary melt zone AFAIK.

    In fact N80+ may show lower air temperatures precisely because of the large amounts of ice melt these past few years, only time will tell for sure.

    Anyways, they need to redo their hindcast at some point regardless, with a single model. with statistical error bars shown, to see if N80+ trendline is truly statistically significant at p = 0.xx TBD.

    And yes, I know the NP is frozen over, it’s been mentioned severel times previously.

    Later,
    Frank

  102. EFS_Junior

    Do you prefer Hansen’s Arctic temperatures, which are based on little or no data north of 80N? I’ll bet you do, because he almost always paints the high Arctic red.

  103. Steve,

    In response: I got the gist from your posts a while ago (you know, where you started talking about pyramid shapes and such?) that the artic had seen a thickening toward the middle. Looking at these graphs I dont get that feeling. Go figure.

    As to clearing 2005 in 10 days, I wouldn’t predict much further than that at this point, cuz I’m not a super predicty guy, but 2005 takes a little dip, and I suggest 2010 will likewise take a dip due to a compaction from winds heading toward the pole from russia, and will end up in a week or so starting to dip like 05 does, and thus finishing to the negative of ’05 in 10 days (like now.) As to the end of the melt season, I think the temperature effects will be surpassed by wind effects for the greater part of the thin sheet and most of the activity to be seen will happen in the next couple weeks.

    But, to be honest, if there IS a prevailing wind from russia north, it will probably carry a great deal of soot from russias current spat of wildfires, which would probably contribute to cloud formation soon and a short stall of surface sublimation and edge melt, but precipitate and contribute to some late season extraneous melt on clear days.

  104. stevengoddard says:
    August 11, 2010 at 7:26 pm
    EFS_Junior

    One of the fundamental precepts of AGW is a longer Arctic melt season.

    2010 is likely to be the shortest on record.
    ___________________________________________________

    Yes, I do think I stated as much in my first post in this thread.

    But one year makes a decadal scale climate trend?

    Also Arctic sea ice extent could be considered a proxy for Arctic temperatures, but perhaps not a very good temperature proxy since we need volume data to better define the melt season duration. I’m hoping that we will see some actual volume data sometime this fall from CRYOSAT-2.

    Later,
    Frank

  105. I think if we see any further extent losses this summer they are likely to come from Beaufort and east Siberian Seas. The only areas left with ice concentrations outside 80N are in the Beaufort, Chukchi, and East Siberian seas.

    The ice on the Laptev side of the East Siberian seems to be compacting towards the East Siberian at the moment whilst the ice in the Beaufort seems to be drifting towards the east Siberian but as this being replaced by ice coming from the Canadian Archipelago side of the Arctic Basin so I dont expect too much of a loss in extent in the Beaufort.

    What I would expect is extent in the Arctic Basin to start increasing very soon. There are areas within the basin on the Greenland and Barents Sea side that are showing less than 10% concentration on NSIDC maps at the moment. Given temps and the direction of ice drift above Greenland I dont see how those areas wont start showing an increased extent within days.

    The more I look at the conditions, the more I see a very early minimum extent this year.

    The other interesting thing is how well the rate of extent loss has tracked against the DMI temp data. Both the May/June high loss rate and the July low loss rate both correspond fairly well with what DMI says was occurring temp wise. I wonder how well the relationship will hold for the remainder of the melt season.

  106. Amino Acids in Meteorites says:
    August 11, 2010 at 7:20 pm

    Frederick Michael says:
    August 11, 2010 at 6:42 pm
    In the winter, the radiative cooling effects would be dominant. Hmmmm; maybe that’s why the winter temps are so erratic here:

    Richard Lindzen in the video I posted above says those large fluctuations are from eddies carrying warm air from lower latitudes to up higher latitudes.

    Yes, yes, yes, but.

    Are the eddies absent in the summer, or at least greater in the winter? The temperature difference of the air brought in by eddies is similar.

    By the way, it hits me that my sunlight hypothesis would imply the lower fluctuations would be centered around summer solstice, not centered on the warmest months.

    Melting ice must have a lot to do with it.

  107. RE: AMSR-E Predictions:

    When I look at my current unofficial AMSR-E anomaly curve, this year’s curve, after reaching a maximum negative extent that was below all other curves at the first of July, rose above the 2007 curve in early July and briefly touched the 2009 curve in late July. It now appears to be ready to intersect the 2008 curve, but this has not happened yet. If the current slope continues, the 2008 curve will be intersected in mid August, the 2009 curve would be intersected around the first of September and the 2005 curve would be intersected in early September.

    Last year’s curve (2009) reached its maximum negative extent anomaly value in early October so we could have a double dip this year as well and that would obviate some of the predictions above.

  108. According to the JAXA dataset, if we take the average melt of 2005-2009, we will reach a low of very close to but just above 5 million square kilometres. If this happens, we will unfortunately be smack bang between Steve’s projection and R Gates, which will put off the celebrations of either my alarmist side or the sceptical side for at least another year. ;)

  109. David Gould says:
    August 11, 2010 at 9:51 pm

    But you have to take into account this year that there has been little melt. Loss in May was more from shear and compaction.

    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/05/27/shear-ice-decline/

    July had the slowest melt for a July on JAXA record.

    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/08/01/sea-ice-news-16/

    Ice is not thin and temperatures are below freezing. So the melt should be slower than you’re thinking.

  110. “The images below show the current date in 2005 and 2010 respectively. Note that 2005 had a lot of thin/low concentration ice in the Laptev/Kara Seas which was vulnerable to being blown around by the wind in September. The ice is less extensive, but thicker in that region in 2010.”

    Am I being stupid because I don’t see anywhere where the ice is thicker in 2010 than 2005?

  111. Looking at JAXA, for consistency, it’s tracking more 2008 than 2005

    So my guess would be that it will be lower than 2005.

    As an aside, can people stop using the word “beat” , such as “I think 2008 will beat “2005” .. it doesn’t actually tell you whether the person is thinking higher or lower, unless you know what they favour.

    Andy

  112. David Gould said:-
    August 11, 2010 at 9:51 pm
    According to the JAXA dataset, if we take the average melt of 2005-2009, we will reach a low of very close to but just above 5 million square kilometres. If this happens, we will unfortunately be smack bang between Steve’s projection and R Gates, which will put off the celebrations of either my alarmist side or the sceptical side for at least another year. ;)
    ——————

    No, that would be a celebration for one camp as they can say the recovery has stopped; if the extent is lower than 2009.

    Andy

  113. Frederick Michael says:
    August 11, 2010 at 9:39 pm

    Richard Lindzen talks about summer temps starting at 1:54 of video

  114. I look at the ice loss every day on the national /navel ice centre images there seemed to be little ice loss yesterday.I think that the difference between nansen and others like jaxa could be in smoothing.nansen appears to track ice loss more closely.

  115. David Gould says:
    August 11, 2010 at 9:51 pm
    According to the JAXA dataset, if we take the average melt of 2005-2009, we will reach a low of very close to but just above 5 million square kilometres. If this happens, we will unfortunately be smack bang between Steve’s projection and R Gates, which will put off the celebrations of either my alarmist side or the sceptical side for at least another year. ;)”

    I like your sense of irony D Gould but I’m not sure your going to get satisfactin on this one. I really can’t see anything other than an early end to the melt season and a below average reduction in extent from this point forward.

    Its interesting that the maximum rate of loss on a 15 day moving average occurred at its earliest point for entire JAXA dataset. Having said this, it was clearly due to the rapid melt in May/June which unlikely to be maintained when conditions in July became less favourable for a “big melt”.

    May and June were interesting in that they showed an ice pack with a higher proportion of first year ice is likely to lead to a very high rate of ice loss early in the season if conditions are adverse. This can then be exacerbated when the melt season gets off to such a late start.

    July showed that it doesnt matter how rapid the loss of extent of 1st year ice in warm conditions in May and June is, what really matters it what the conditions are in July and August when 1st year ice closer to the Arctic Basin and the multi-year ice are more in play. We saw conditions in July much cooler and prevailing currents much less likely to push 1st year ice out in to warmer waters.

    Now we get the final chapter for 2010. Can a pack that has spread a little thinly hold on if air temps get below normal in late August or early September. Is the ice vulnerable to warmer water below the ice. I guess we’ll have some answers very soon.

    I’m going to be extremely bullish now and say we’ll lose no more than 600,000 sq km for the rest of the season (way below the average for the past 8 years). This will would put this years minimum in the 5.6-5.7 million range, well about the 2009 result and close to the 2006 figure of 5.78 million.

    It would take a loss of 500,000 sq km from here on to match the 2006 minimum. In 2006, the ice loss from this point forward was 750,000 sq km.

  116. Deanster,

    No I don’t dismiss DMI. Just trying to give a little background, and encourage some legwork to give a bigger picture. Wotsup is putting all its eggs in the DMI basket because it suits.

    Steve Goddard discover something to bring my house of cards down? I won’t hold my breath. As he says he’s busy focusing on the detail, that’s why the big picture passes him by.

    A lot of energi is used here on WU to discover that elusive ’something’ which will prove the world isn’t warming. Havn’t found it yet.

    CONFUSIONISTS (confused about climate and dedicated to confusing others) have been promising the big cooldown for years. Havn’t seen that either. Just ups and downs in global temps. – most ups it seems. I suppose the big freeze is still just around the corner!! And all the cold weather stories (another thing WotsU focuses on – forget the big picture) are just to encourage the faithful that the promised cooldown is imminent?

  117. It will finish with less than 2005, and I will bet it to finish slightly under 2009 too. My reasons? Well… In all the record available since the beginning of satellite measurements, the arctic has never recovered ice 3 years in a row. We recovered ice in 2008 and in 2009. I don’t think we will do in 2010. Even though we are comming from an extraordinarily low minimum in 2007. So I am betting for a small pause this year, and then we will continue to recover ice in 2011.

  118. What do you think? Will 2010 beat 2005? Please explain your reasoning.

    Based on nothing more scientific than a CCWAG (Carefully-Calculated Wild-A$$ Guess): the lack of movement through the Fram, the actual water temperatures (and with the Pacific going into La Niña), and a nagging hunch that we’re going to see a southerly incursion by the jet stream, I predict 2010 will catch 2005 in early September and poke through the 2005 dip for a short distance.

    Commence firing. Popcorn will be served.

  119. A lot of energi is used here on WU to discover that elusive ’something’ which will prove the world isn’t warming.

    A deep misunderstanding . But an expected one .
    The world has been warming and cooling during several billions years with pseudocycles at every scale – from decades to millions of years .
    Plenty of elusive somethings in our past that either warm or cool the world .
    When it is not cooling , it is warming . And conversely. It never stops somewhere.
    So what ?
    It is apparently a shocking news for you that the Earth has a preference for warming during an interglacial and that the probability for warming periods (fast or slow) is bigger than for cooling periods .
    Well it always happened , live with it and pray that it lasts as long as possible .
    Because when it stops , it is going to get VERY ugly for everybody .

  120. Amino Acids in Meteorites says:
    August 11, 2010 at 5:50 pm

    Village Idiot says:
    August 11, 2010 at 4:16 pm

    Global warming rules:

    1. Never discuss the science.

    2. Attack the man. (or institution, agency, university, study, data, whatever is needed)

    3. Repeat 1 & 2 until you feel you’ve won the argument and have distracted people from reality.

    Reply; change heading to; No global warming rules

  121. Looking at the 0-700m ocean heat content in Northern Atlantic, I cannot say how will 2010 end up, but the long-term trend has obviously reversed.

    Next few decades–>more arctic ice.

  122. Considering:

    – The current trends
    – The current temperatures in the Arctic region
    – The relatively small amount of thin ice (less than 2 m)
    – The fact that it’s already 12 August (so there is only about a month left in which a decline is to be expected)

    …there is a fair chance that there will still be only a small decline of the Arctic sea ice this year. So yes, if that happens, then 2010 could “beat” 2005.

  123. 2010 will sneak above 2006 briefly in early – mid September and finish virtually level with the 2006 minimum in the last week of that month.

    To predict this, I’ve applied The Team’s methods:

    (1) That’s where it looks like the line’s going at the moment when smoothed by eye
    (2) No one will remember this prediction by then if I get it wrong*
    (3) Even if they do, the difference will be statistically insignificant and fully explainable by local weather rather than climate.

    Now, where do I collect my Climate Research grant from? ;)

    * although I’ll be sure to remind y’all if it turns out to be right ;)

  124. Its not clear to me why AGW would necessarily imply a longer melt season — a stronger/faster melt season, sure, but longer? I just don’t see it… unless AGW was proposed to cause the spring and fall equinoxes to move apart… ;)

  125. The chances of 2010 beating 2006 in the JAXA record are close to zero. 2010 area is already lower than the 2006 minimum, and extent is not much above the 2006 minimum.

  126. This is so typical. Pick the stats you want to prove your case.

    go here

    http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/satellite/index.uk.php

    Change the parameter from SST to anomalies

    Study

    Whilst the extent measurements are a good overall indicator of change, they are absolutely no use when the environment changes the way it loses ice.

    Right now the major loss of ice is within the extent (increasing open water within the body of the main ice pack), so much so that the only solid ice without open water is north of the Archipelago and at two places on the Siberian coast.

    In this scenario, 90% of the ice loss is not reported in the Extent measurements. Which is even more remarkable given that extent is currently tracking 2008 in every chart except the DMI one. Which uses a different measurement to the rest and so can’t be compared directly.

    I suspect that Pimass is finally going to drop off the scale by the end of September. Looking at the pictures instead of the charts it will only take 2 weeks of clear weather to melt the thin skin of a very large area of the Arctic.

    Then again it may not. However, the message doesn’t change no matter what the Extent map says. Volume is down. Decline is continuing. This is not good for Human life on planet earth. Unless, of course, the humans want to cede ownership to the Ants.

  127. Denmark is a place. A beautiful place; and like every other place on the planet. The problem is the carbon units infesting Denmark (and every other place on the planet). Now I can personally vouch for 96% of the carbon units in Denmark (and those in every other place on the planet). The problem is the other 4%. These are the extreme 2% on each side of the Carbon Unit Bell Curve.

    Regarding the question if 2010 will finish ahead or below 2005 – the answer is very likely ‘Yes!’. But, the way things have been going lately, I feel it is only fair to suggest that it will be a tie (a photo finish and a tie). So, there it is. I’ve stuck my neck way out there. It’s gonna’ be a tie.

  128. Because I don’t like someone in Denmark? Why do you try to make it sound as if I have made a personal attack.

    Have you bothered to look up DMI’s previous gaffes?

    Calculation of sea ice area is not an exact science. First grade climate stuff. We all know that there are a number of different estimates calculated in different ways all with their own pros and cons. Yet you’re working yourself into a lather over the DAILY difference being within a whisker of something on ONE of those?

    Have you read DMI’s blurb about how to use their product?

    “ The shown sea ice extent values are therefore recommended be used qualitatively in relation to ice extent values from other years shown in the figure.”

    Are you doing that?

    Have you read about the changes made last year to the way the data are used?

    Maybe if you spent a little less time on the datail like ‘whisker differences’ in daily estimates you’d be able to see the wood for the trees. For example Arctic sea ice volume?:

    http://psc.apl.washington.edu/ArcticSeaiceVolume/IceVolume.php

    Ooops…Sorry. I forgot. You prefer blog science (except of course when you fall over something that fits the Confusionist global cooling illusion!)

    But there. What do I know. I’m just the idiot.

  129. What is more important is June-July in 2010, where the drop off suddenly begins to slow and plateau early. This would seem to indicate 2010 could easily hit a high minimum for the year compared to 2005.

    So yes, I think 2010 will beat 2005.

  130. Steven,

    So you are telling me that 75% of the arctic ice is not fragmented and showing open water amongst ice floes? I’m sorry I don’t believe you because I can actually see it with my own eyes.

    You are telling me that area LOSS is falling. Yes it’s falling. BUT it was already so low that it could cruise from now till September and still equal 2008 or 2009. My guess is that it will increase again soon but who knows it could be 2006 all over again and it would still beat 2005 hands down.

    Note, area is just above 2008 at 4.096 msqkm

    You focus on whether it’s disappearing faster or slower. I focus on whether it’s GONE or not. In the long run who is going to have a red face? I’m not feeling any flushes coming on……

  131. stevengoddard says:
    August 12, 2010 at 5:46 am

    The chances of 2010 beating 2006 in the JAXA record are close to zero. 2010 area is already lower than the 2006 minimum, and extent is not much above the 2006 minimum.

    Hi Steve, do you have a link where I can access the JAXA area data (not graphs)? On their site, I was only able to get extent. Maybe I’m just missing it or something.

    -Scott

  132. stevengoddard says:
    August 12, 2010 at 7:09 am

    “Area is dropping slower than extent. Your analysis is flawed.”

    ______
    When you have divergence, area does drop slower than extent, and neither of them give a good metric for melt rates.

  133. Steve, tea-leaf reading of the JAXA data …

    … seems closer to the 2006 pattern of events, we were about a week behind it but now about a week ahead. Deceleration of melt kicked in around July 26th (moving average obviously doesn’t show the past week). The final ascent seems established now and the slope looks promising. Based on the last 7 years, I think it unlikely to make a significant reversal again until the “September blip”, which vaguely appears to happen most years to some extent. True, 2009 stalled and didn’t take off until mid August but its earlier pattern of swings is very different. As to what causes that September blip, could it be a final outpouring of debris along coastlines somewhere that’s triggered by early edge re-freeze backup that‘s then overwhelmed again? Can’t quite see why ice spread thin on some imaginary table finally giving up the ghost would seem to recur most years, right at the end like that. Even more tenuous, but deceleration does seem to slow/stall for a bit just before the blip happens, sure looks to the uninformed eye like somewhere getting blocked and giving way again. Maybe it’s worth looking for something like that in the last week and a half of August 2005 and 2006, rather than September. If the deceleration pans out as I suspect, given early weather forecasts etc., we might be so near stasis by then it’s unlikely to make a ha’penney of difference. All depends on winds and weather, anybody’s guess quite frankly.

    Just harmless amusement, the biggest sheet of ice I’ve ever seen was probably in a granite water trough in 1963 and I’ve never been north of about 56⁰. What the hell would I know? But for a wild punt based on the above nonsense I’ll go with crossing stasis early, let’s say the 8th of September, and staying on the freeze side. No significant blip, maybe a tiny one on the freeze side later as seems to be winking at us in 2008 and 9. Ought to be as good as projecting temps 1500km into the middle of nowhere anyway, so what the hell. I’ve no idea what minimum extent that might yield and don’t really care, there’s a whole month for it to meander through yet. The timing is more important – the earlier the freeze starts, the bigger the humdinger all indications suggest may be coming next is going to get. So keep at your analysis and the best of luck with it, these threads make for riveting reading! How’re the ice-page hit stats looking BTW?

  134. Amino Acids in Meteorites says:
    August 11, 2010 at 10:37 pm

    Frederick Michael says:
    August 11, 2010 at 9:39 pm

    Richard Lindzen talks about summer temps starting at 1:54 of video

    I love the video but why is “radiative balance” the key factor only when the temp is above 0C? There’s a LOT more sunlight in May than in September but the temp is more stable in September. Intuitively, if radiative balance was the key to summer temp stability, then the stable temps would be centered around the solstice.

    His explanation of the wide swings in winter temps makes sense to me but his explanation of the summer stability does not. Melting ice is a great temperature regulator and the raw data shows stable temps just when the ice is melting.

    My original hypothesis (on winter temps) is toast; Lindzen’s explanation is much better. But the timing of the summer stability profoundly supports a connection with melting.

  135. My prediction this late in the game is 5.1 million sq. kilometers by the JAXA ice extent calc.

    My reasoning is that the average melt for August and September by JAXA is 1.5 and 0.2 respectively, for the years available in the JAXA excel spreadsheet.
    Melt from Aug 1 on by that rough estimate gives the 5.1 million.

    Cryosphere Today shows ice area now is only beaten by 2007, 2008 and 2009.
    The current image shows large areas in the 20-40% range which winds could move around, either compacting or spreading out, so there is still a lot of uncertainty in the game.

    I think it will beat 2009, leaving only 2008 and 2007 with lower minimums.

  136. Bob, in 5 more years- if this trend continues-, will you say that 2015 ice extent is ONLY beaten by 07, 08, 09, 10, 11, 12, 13, and 2014?

  137. From http://nsidc.org/arcticmet/factors/radiation.html related to September stability.

    “A comment about the seasonal cycle of solar radiation

    The following description of the seasonal cycle of solar radiation based on gridded global radiation fields has been drawn from the data section of the Arctic Climatology Project Arctic Meteorology and Climate Atlas.

    The field of global radiation for March shows a primarily zonal pattern, that is, one in which radiation decreases with latitude. This occurs because in March, the amount of solar radiation at the top of the atmosphere decreases sharply with increasing latitude. From April through August, latitudinal variations in solar radiation at the top of the atmosphere are less pronounced, so that cloud cover plays a strong role in determining the flux reaching the surface. Consequently, radiation patterns from April through August are very asymmetric. Fluxes are lowest over the Atlantic sector, where cloud cover is greatest. Fluxes peak over central Greenland from May through August. In large part, this illustrates the tendency for the high central portions of the ice sheet to be above the bulk of cloud cover. The highest fluxes are found in June because radiation at the top of the atmosphere peaks in June. Note for June the rather high fluxes over the central Arctic Ocean. This is largely explained in that cloud cover over this region is comparatively limited. From July onwards, radiation fluxes decline. September shows a zonal pattern, which as with March, arises from the strong latitudinal variation in solar flux at the top of the atmosphere for this month.”

  138. Seems like lots of folks have DMI in their sights for some reason.

    I always look at the JAXA ice; and for no other reason that it was an easy click on Anthony’s side panel; well heck; the DMI polar temperature was there too so I clicked on that. So for the legal disclaimer; my occasional reference to JAXA, in no way dismisses DMI ice which I’m given to understand is actually the longer record.

    Also there’s my buddy; Nobel Laureate Svend Hendriksen who lives on Greenland for long periods; and I believe he works for DMI; and he has sent me all sorts of interesting ice stuff.

    So I look for information anyplace I can get it, and DMI is at least not behind the paywall; so it’s ok by me.

  139. Pamela,

    Surely if this trend continues, and the 2007 minimum is not beaten, then I’ll say that.

    And hopefully this graph will not be 6 years out of date in 2015,

    But I won’t say the ice is recovering until I see a minimum above 6 million by JAXA, or a similar by 15% measure.

    Do you agree that the longer term trends are more important, say over 15 or more years?

    I know why you guys don’t like PIOMAS.

  140. stevengoddard says:
    August 12, 2010 at 5:16 am

    EFS_Junior

    Roger Pielke Sr. did a study last year, showing no change in the length of the summer melt season over the last 30 years.
    —————————————
    Markus et al. (2009) did a study that shows the length of the melt season is increasing, which was dominated by later freeze up. I haven’t read the Pielke paper. Steve, do you have a link to that one?

  141. Steve says

    “75% of the ice is fragmented every summer. Concentration has been higher than normal this year.”

    Really? Personally I’ve never seen anything like this. What I have seen is that every year more of the ice breaks up in the centre with more open water around it. I’ve checked back through the cryosphere today archive and nothing like this is recorded in those archives.

    I’d say that it will be interesting to continue this converstation but I have a horrible feeling that when the Arctic is open water all summer this same blog will be discussing whether there is more or less ice in Novermber and whether it will or won’t break a record……..

    I guess it’s really all about your point of view.

  142. Julienne,

    The study was done by Roger Pielke Sr. at CU and William Chapman at UIUC.

    http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/2008/12/04/are-there-long-term-trends-in-the-start-of-freeze-up-and-melt-of-arctic-sea-ice/

    The finding in this data is that there is no clear evidence of a delay in the start of the later summer/early fall freeze up or [an earlier] start of the late winter/early spring melt despite the well below average areal sea ice coverage.

  143. bob says:
    August 12, 2010 at 9:44 am

    My prediction this late in the game is 5.1 million sq. kilometers by the JAXA ice extent calc.

    My reasoning is that the average melt for August and September by JAXA is 1.5 and 0.2 respectively, for the years available in the JAXA excel spreadsheet.
    Melt from Aug 1 on by that rough estimate gives the 5.1 million.

    Cryosphere Today shows ice area now is only beaten by 2007, 2008 and 2009.
    The current image shows large areas in the 20-40% range which winds could move around, either compacting or spreading out, so there is still a lot of uncertainty in the game.

    I think it will beat 2009, leaving only 2008 and 2007 with lower minimums.

    This approach is similar to what I did above in terms of using current extents to forecast the final minimum by using past extents from the same day. For the 08/11 data, the predicted extent is 5.05e6 km^2. The problem is, the R^2 for this correlation currently stands at 0.918 and therefore the uncertainty (95% confidence) is +/- 4.57e6 km^2. Wait another week and the R^2 will be a much more robust 0.976, although uncertainties will still be a couple million km^2. I do think the uncertainty I calculate is overestimated due to only have 6 degrees of freedom on the regression, however.

    -Scott

  144. Village Idiot,

    You did not provide proof for your claim. I have no reason to believe it now.

    You need to be careful because people who do not provide proof for their claims after a time just become background noise.

  145. stevengoddard says:
    August 12, 2010 at 4:47 am

    DMI shows 2010 within a whisper of 2005 this morning

    Steven Goddard,

    Do you think it has a chance to go higher than 2006?

  146. Julienne Stroeve says:
    August 12, 2010 at 11:53 am

    Markus et al. (2009) did a study that shows the length of the melt season is increasing, which was dominated by later freeze up

    What time period does that study cover?

  147. stevengoddard says:
    August 12, 2010 at 4:47 am

    DMI shows 2010 within a whisper of 2005 this morning.

    Huh. No kidding. Wow!

    The only thing I want from JAXA (15%) is to be higher than 2009. The only thing I want (as of now) from DMi (30%) is to pass 2006 into #1. :-)

    Is 2010 going to wear the daddy pants? Is PIOMAS going to cry? Is that what’s going to happen, PIOMAS is going to cry? ;-)

  148. I would go with your view on this over mine Steven Goddard. You obviously know far more about this than me. I’m just thinking of the possibility.

  149. R. Gates says:
    August 12, 2010 at 8:43 am
    stevengoddard says:
    August 12, 2010 at 7:09 am

    “Area is dropping slower than extent. Your analysis is flawed.”

    ______
    When you have divergence, area does drop slower than extent, and neither of them give a good metric for melt rates.

    =================
    Melt rates are falling, the sun is setting, temps are dropping, and it appears there will not be a major “flush” of the ice this year.
    The thin ice already melted. Below average temps all year.
    All the heat is being dissipated in Russia, and Chicago (and east coast).
    2010 will eclipse 2006!

  150. stevengoddard says:
    August 12, 2010 at 11:31 am
    George E. Smith

    You can always tell how valuable a data source is by how vociferously AAGW types go after it.
    _____________________________________________________________

    Ergo, all your vociferous posts with respect to PIOMAS. And the mean global temperature record. To name just two examples.

  151. It didn’t do my blood pressure a lot of good hearing the BBC, on the ‘Today’ programme, talking about the warming of the Arctic and the ‘melting’ of the Greenland glacier recently. Grrr. I turned off in disgust.

    I froze while I was out last night looking at the Perseids. I’ve needed blankets (yes, plural) on my bed and haven’t even got out the fans this summer, much less used the AC. This is supposed to be high summer…it feels like autumn. This is in middle SW England.

    Heatwave? Definitely not.

  152. If the current cooling trend continues, The ice will reach an early minimum which is still beneath the 2005 minimum at that point in time but it will then turn and begin regrowth that will place it well above the 2005 minimum.

  153. Scott: Numeric Data from JAXA: http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/seaice/extent/plot.csv = NUMERIC EXTENT
    http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/timeseries.anom.1979-2008 AREA Anomaly & Area & Area Mean (unlabeled)
    … everyone else is coy …
    Steve … did you give an OUTDATED PIOMAS CHART — Tsk Tsk, cherry picking again (they forecast a day in advance)
    … gee, all 3 days after have Arctic-Dipole-like Fram Strait ICE Export.
    Possibly this will show up as 100K melts shortly … or maybe it has, & this is all it gets. 2008 may soon Gain.
    30 km-a-day =FAST motion takes 50 days for the West basin Ice to reach the Exit.
    But the DIPOLE is back for at least the next 9 days.
    AO index Daily http://www.cpc.noaa.gov/products/precip/CWlink/daily_ao_index/ao_index.html
    FORECASTS : 10day EMMCF pick NHemisphere http://www.wetterzentrale.de/topkarten/fsecmeur.html
    9-DAY http://weather.unisys.com/gfsx/9panel/gfsx_500p_9panel_nhem.html
    Comparing _______2007___ to___ 2010_____&____2009/08__
    Ahead Aug12____+ 720,412p=11%__no__behind_2010:_170K_86K
    Ahead Aug 12 AREA 332,220=8%___no__behind/ahead 264 K 127 K
    RISK : net -4.3% = 5.7 but -323,220 area ~8%
    Daily: ___________2007___ to___ 2010__&__(2009__2010
    Aug10-11_______ -59,219 _____ -67,969____(-67,500__52,343
    Aug11-12_______ -47,500 _____ -64,119p___(-56,094__69,063
    Aug12-13_______ -44,875 _____ – ?___? ___(-87,656__70,635
    Aug13-14_______ -27,406 _____ – ?___? ___(-49,219__60,781
    Aug14-15_______ -40,469 _____ – ?___? ___(-21,875__86,969

  154. Charles Wilson says:
    August 13, 2010 at 7:15 am

    Thanks for the link to the Cryosphere area data…I didn’t have that previously. I will try to incorporate that into my current spreadsheet to improve the precision and accuracy of its predictions.

    As to your 1e6 km^2 prediction, my spreadsheet as of the 8/12 JAXA data still has it as a possibility. It’s currently using present extent to predict a final extent of 5.03e6 +/- 4.29e6 km^2 (95% confidence interval). However, it is losing 2e5 to 3e5 off of its uncertainty daily, so once the 8/13 data posts I imagine your prediction will be knocked out of the 95% confidence interval. Practically, I’d say it’s already knocked out of contention because much of the high uncertainty comes from only have 8 years of JAXA data to work with.

    -Scott

  155. Steve said:

    DMI is the best source because they measure 30% concentration ice, which is more stable and filters out high frequency noise.

    Well, DMI uses dynamic tie-points to measure sea ice concentration and adjusts them every month. On top the set of tie points changed 2006. Comparing 2005 and 2010 is comparing apples and oranges. Btw. the resolution of the DMI concentration data is somewhat low. Did you read the documentation?

  156. Marcia, Marcia says:
    August 12, 2010 at 5:42 pm

    Julienne Stroeve says:
    August 12, 2010 at 11:53 am

    Markus et al. (2009) did a study that shows the length of the melt season is increasing, which was dominated by later freeze up

    What time period does that study cover?
    ——————
    1979-2008

  157. @Scott

    It’s currently using present extent to predict a final extent of 5.03e6 +/- 4.29e6 km^2 (95% confidence interval).

    … how can your error bars allow a forecast minimum of >= 6.14e6 km^2 given that that’s the current value? Is time about to reverse?

  158. stevengoddard says:
    August 13, 2010 at 12:13 am
    EFS_Junior

    Sticking up for PIOMAS?

    You might as well tie yourself to a boat anchor.
    _____________________________________________________________

    Hmm, given what you’ve posted on the subject matter to date, why of course, what with all of PIOMAS’s real numbers with actual engineering units of measure attached vs your ill defined ROI and ill defined pixel-metres and PIPS 2.0 is actual data vs the reality that PIPS 2.0 is an operational/navigation model and your specious arguments that your predictions are perfect because you’re using PIPS 2.0 model output nonsensical handwaving.

  159. Peter Ellis says:
    August 13, 2010 at 1:57 pm

    @Scott

    It’s currently using present extent to predict a final extent of 5.03e6 +/- 4.29e6 km^2 (95% confidence interval).

    … how can your error bars allow a forecast minimum of >= 6.14e6 km^2 given that that’s the current value? Is time about to reverse?

    Because my method of prediction is very poor and completely statistical in nature. I fit a line to the 2002-2009 JAXA data where y = minimum extent and x = extent on a given day (in this case, 08/12). I then use the generated line to predict the minimum for 2010 given that day’s extent in 2010. However, there is high uncertainty with this method because (a) the line doesn’t fit the data that well and (b) there are only 6 degrees of freedom in the fit.

    I reported the 95% confidence interval as I calculated it. Remember, this is statistical, not reality. For instance, say I tried to weigh a small mass several times and got the following values:
    1
    0.1
    2
    0.5
    8
    1.5
    The average & std dev according to Excel are 2.18 & 2.93, and the 95% confidence interval is +/- 2.34. Clearly, the mass of the object isn’t negative even though the 95% interval has negative values in its range. It’s the same here, a value greater than the current extent is physically impossible, despite the statistics.

    -Scott

  160. EFS_Junior says:
    August 13, 2010 at 6:30 pm

    Hmm, given what you’ve posted on the subject matter to date, why of course, what with all of PIOMAS’s real numbers with actual engineering units of measure attached vs your ill defined ROI and ill defined pixel-metres and PIPS 2.0 is actual data vs the reality that PIPS 2.0 is an operational/navigation model and your specious arguments that your predictions are perfect because you’re using PIPS 2.0 model output nonsensical handwaving.

    This is one of the weakest arguments I’ve seen. Are you even an engineer? If so, you’d realize that plenty of engineering metrics are DIMENSIONLESS – Reynolds numbers, Peclet numbers, etc. As to relationships between pixels and distance, how else do you suggest converting between distance and image pixels? I guess you don’t use Google Earth, a GPS, or online maps because they all have relationships between pixels and distance? Wow, just wow. And in case you haven’t noticed, Steve has admitted that PIPS 2.0 is a model….just like PIOMAS.

    I definitely don’t agree with Steve’s extreme confidence in his methods, but so far they’ve done a good job so far and the ad hominem attacks from the professionals show just how much he’s struck a nerve.

    -Scott

  161. Ian H says:
    August 11, 2010 at 5:42 pm

    On what grounds do you say it is tracking 2005. It looks to me much more like it is tracking 2009. A least squares difference measure over the past few weeks would show it as much closer to 2009 than 2005 as the two graphs are sitting almost on top of each other.

    Please try doing the analysis before saying that it “would show it as much closer to 2009”. You weren’t specific saying “the past few weeks”, but using July 24-Aug 13 in the JAXA record showed an R^2 for 2009 = 0.9872 and an R^2 for 2005 = 0.9895. The best fit is for 2006 (as Steve has indicated in another post…2010 is nearly parallel with 2006) at R^2 = 0.9938.

    In terms of slope (2010/other year), 2005 = 0.944 and 2009 = 1.264. With respect to closeness to unity, 2005 is the best match here, followed by 2006 (2009 is the worst match).

    -Scott

  162. Sure PIOMAS and PIPS used hypothesis. PIPS works—obviously. PIOMAS is sorely wrong—-obviously. When a hypothesis gets supporting evidence it’s a good hypothesis. When a hypothesis doesn’t get supporting evidence it is bad.

    PIOPMAS is a bad hypothesis. PIPS is working good. Get over it.

    BTW, should I believe what PIOMAS has to say about what will happen 30 years from now if what it says about now is wrong?

  163. As for my 1.0 Prediction ‘only the Fast Ice left’ (fastened to the Greenland & Canadian Islands) … apparently this Ice spread out, and so I was right — – only the Fast Ice is left.

    But that’s an excuse. I was wrong.
    But … for a reason. And those blasted Fires (remember, when I posted on the Hurrican predictions – –
    1. El Ninos normally disrupt Hurricane Patterns, even if giving them more energy theoretically — as Ninos mostly start up just West of Peru which is actually due SOUTH of the Carribbean & not so far away.
    SO = LESS Hurricanes than Norm.
    2. BUT, this was a “Modoki” or one starting in the WEST — so = MORE (like 2005).
    3. BUT, a VERY Strong El Nino also activates the Saharan Dust storms
    = No Hurricanes at all (nearly).
    Perhaps the soot fall kills the Arctic weather. However, in my Sea Ice Update — if Helen@arcus.org doesn’t substitute something else — again — I will state it is mainly the TIME LAG when one switches Hot-to-Cold — one can get Hot water still crawling along at 4 mph, yet cold (La Nina) Air giving CLEAR SKY = SUN … plus driving Ice out of the Basin – – like 2007 – – and 2010, NOW. But not last month.
    … But the MAIN MELT MONTH is July, and the “lull” hit 2010 right in the Gut.
    Even so, I expect less than HALF of Last year’s Minimum ICE, by Volume. It appears to already be under 2007’s minimum of ~ 5000 km3. (14,600km3 August Mean (monthly or Aug 1 ?) with a 10,200 Anomaly on July 31 = 4400 ????) Charts on left side of page at: http://psc.apl.washington.edu/ArcticSeaiceVolume/IceVolume.php

    … It’s just that 2000+km3 of 30 foot thick Ice that never affected anything before … is now spread out over the basin in chunks.
    … BAD NEWS: Next time there will be no unexpected EXTRA ICE to save the day.
    The Cavalry is all used up.
    … GOOD NEWS: the 60-year cycle implies we have substantial ICE GAIN for several years as, for 27 more years, La Ninas will outnumber EL NINOs by 2:1 , AND be stronger. In fact, both Long & short Cycles are in “Cold” Mode at present (the short has 10 year up & 10 down , plus a variable number in between, thus its multiple names as the “22”, “24” 26, or 28 year cycle. Note NOT ALL YEARS ARE COLD – – but we can expect more-Nina-than-Nino years, from 2003-2013. The long cycle seems to affect strength more than number & it ran Cold 1947-77 and Hot 1977-2007 — changeovers were midyear & FAST). Thus we MAY get unlucky 3-5 years from Now, BUT if we avoid that, we are safe for perhaps 50 years, I think.
    The other risks of Global Warming rate THOUSANDS of times less — e.g.
    6 Billion lives x 45 years loss x 10% = 27 Billion Life Year Loss. Risk is for say 3-4 years every 60 years = say 1.5 Billion or 1,500 MILLIONs.
    100 million Displaced by Sea level Rise over 100 years @ 1 year of Life for the inconvenience = 27,000 times LESS than this year, 1,500 times less than average.

  164. DMI 80N Temps are plummeting, but remember that the freezing point of seawater is 271.23 K (at the surface), not 273.15 K. The purple line in this picture is placed at the freezing point of seawater. The light blue line assumes zero salinity, which obviously is not representative of the actual conditions in the Arctic Ocean. Still, having the temperature this far below average at this time of year is unusual, especially with the Arctic Oscillation starting to go Negative again.

  165. Steve,

    This looks like a stochastic governor effect. Hit the buffers too early and you get overshoot. Look closely at the melt deceleration rates through Aug and Sept across all years; consider the latent heat involved and how the energy input is dropping off. Sept 11th seems to be the sweet spot. If it goes into freeze mode much before that, it’ll likely take a proportionate dip again to compensate (other factors being equal). 2005 and 6 were both aiming for Sept 1st from about mid August. Email me if you want the plots, etc. that suggest this. Sorry, don’t hold with this fast/slow ice malarkey; apart from ocean current delivery, the amount of energy involved is fairly finite.

  166. Scott says:
    August 13, 2010 at 7:20 pm
    Peter Ellis says:
    August 13, 2010 at 1:57 pm

    @Scott

    It’s currently using present extent to predict a final extent of 5.03e6 +/- 4.29e6 km^2 (95% confidence interval).

    … how can your error bars allow a forecast minimum of >= 6.14e6 km^2 given that that’s the current value? Is time about to reverse?

    Because my method of prediction is very poor and completely statistical in nature. I fit a line to the 2002-2009 JAXA data where y = minimum extent and x = extent on a given day (in this case, 08/12). I then use the generated line to predict the minimum for 2010 given that day’s extent in 2010. However, there is high uncertainty with this method because (a) the line doesn’t fit the data that well and (b) there are only 6 degrees of freedom in the fit.

    I reported the 95% confidence interval as I calculated it. Remember, this is statistical, not reality. For instance, say I tried to weigh a small mass several times and got the following values:
    1
    0.1
    2
    0.5
    8
    1.5
    The average & std dev according to Excel are 2.18 & 2.93, and the 95% confidence interval is +/- 2.34. Clearly, the mass of the object isn’t negative even though the 95% interval has negative values in its range. It’s the same here, a value greater than the current extent is physically impossible, despite the statistics.

    -Scott
    _____________________________________________________________

    I don’t know how you’re getting such large confidence bands that are O91) with the extent predictions.

    I get the following values (Date of Prediction, Predicted Extent Minima, 95% confidence (+/-) interval (Excel Student T which is for small samples and gives larger confidence bands);

    7/6/2010,4.685E6 km^2, 0.481E6 km^2
    7/15/2010,4.935E6 km^2, 0.423E6 km^2
    7/24/2010,5.003E6 km^2, 0.361E6 km^2
    8/2/2010,4.963E6 km^2, 0.320E6 km^2
    8/11/2010,5.043E6 km^2, 0.239E6 km^2
    8/20/2010,4.959E6 km^2, 0.135E6 km^2 (5.675E6 km^2 extent on that date)
    8/29/2010,4.937E6 km^2, 0.078E6 km^2 (5.285E6 km^2 extent on that date)

    Thr last two dates use a calculated extent for those future dates derived from JAXA statistical model 2003-2010 inclusive.

    The predicted 2010 minima extents show remarkable consistency for the real data, 7/15/2010 through 8/11/2010 inclusive).

    Note that the confidence intervals are at least O(0.1) yours, and the confidence interval collapses rapidly as it approaches the actual extent minima.

  167. EFS_Junior says:
    August 14, 2010 at 9:52 pm

    Looking at the plot, it’s clear that you’re right, my 95% confidence interval is way too high. I’ll have to troubleshoot my spreadsheet to find what is incorrect. I guess I pulled a Michael Mann and chose to write my own statistical stuff instead of letting a dedicated piece of software do it.

    Thanks for your help.

    -Scott

  168. Charles W.;
    Funny how everyone assumes warming bad, cooling good. Historically, it’s been the exact opposite. Personally, I hope the Arctic clears out and we get a Holocene Optimum!

  169. Scott says:
    August 15, 2010 at 12:35 pm
    EFS_Junior says:
    August 14, 2010 at 9:52 pm

    Looking at the plot, it’s clear that you’re right, my 95% confidence interval is way too high. I’ll have to troubleshoot my spreadsheet to find what is incorrect. I guess I pulled a Michael Mann and chose to write my own statistical stuff instead of letting a dedicated piece of software do it.

    Thanks for your help.

    -Scott
    _____________________________________________________________

    What I did was subtract the linear regression curve from the JAXA 2003-1009 values. That gives you a set of vertical deviations from the linear fit for those years, I placed these valuse in an adjacent column called “sigma” I then did C9 = STDEV(C1:C7) to get the standard deviation (I didn’t use STDEVP as the dataset is small), finally I got 95% confidence by setting C10 = CONFIDENCE.T(0.05,C9,7), using Excel 2010.

    I also did all the calculations out longhand (in the spreadsheet without using Excel functions) to double check my understanding of Excel 2010, all longhand calculations agreed exactly with the Excel 2010 function call results.

    Hope this helps.

Comments are closed.