What happened in 2005 to Arctic sea ice?

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.

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]

Buffoon
2010 is already “slightly to the negative ” of 2005.

Perhaps hydrothermal vents were more active, or an undersea volcano erupted in the area late August/early September in 2005?

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

Always have your Kashmir sweater available when we have an Indian summer.

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…

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.

N.Pole is cold the wind should go to the lowest pressure-where it is hot.
BTW-Check out Joe Bastardi’s comments.
http://www.accuweather.com/ukie/bastardi-europe-blog.asp
things are about to change…

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.

phil
The NSIDC newsletter includes this graph, which seems to hint at a near record low in 2010.
http://nsidc.org/images/arcticseaicenews/20100804_Figure2.png
How would you reconcile your ideas with the NSIDC graph ;^)

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.

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.

Tom in Texas,
HAHAHA…Good one, wish I had said that! 🙂

Question, I’ve noticed that my comments are being delayed for moderation by nearly an hour. Is there something wrong?
[Moderator shortage today. Sorry.]

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).

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.

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.

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.

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).

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.

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.

Invariant:
http://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.

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!

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!

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)

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.

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.

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.

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.

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…

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!

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?
http://weather.unisys.com/surface/sst_anom.html

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.’

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.

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.

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

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

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..

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.

This is why it will go above 2005 and 2006
http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/meant80n.uk.php

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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……….

…note there was a downwards dip in mid-September, 2005. What caused this?
The declination of the moon.

2010 will beat 2005 based on the arctic temperature. It is running below average and has already droped to 32. See web link and just his the 2010 and 2005 links to compare.
http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/meant80n.uk.php

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.

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?

EFS_Junior
One of the fundamental precepts of AGW is a longer Arctic melt season.
2010 is likely to be the shortest on record.

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

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.

oops, I meant the ice extent will fall below 2009

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.

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

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.

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.

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.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/05/27/shear-ice-decline/
July had the slowest melt for a July on JAXA record.
http://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.

Looking at JAXA, for consistency, it’s tracking more 2008 than 2005
http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/seaice/extent/AMSRE_Sea_Ice_Extent_L.png
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

Frederick Michael says:
August 11, 2010 at 9:39 pm
Richard Lindzen talks about summer temps starting at 1:54 of video

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.

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 .

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.
http://climexp.knmi.nl/data/inodc_heat700_290-360E_0-60N_na.png
Next few decades–>more arctic ice.

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.

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.

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… 😉

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.

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.

Idiot
I have written lots of articles recently showing that PIOMAS is grossly incorrect.
Perhaps you should read more and talk less?

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
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/seaice.recent.arctic.png
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……

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.

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

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?

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.”

George E. Smith
You can always tell how valuable a data source is by how vociferously AGW types go after it.

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?

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.

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

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?

Marcia, Marcia
I don’t think 2010 will beat 2006.

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? 😉

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.

EFS_Junior
Sticking up for PIOMAS?
You might as well tie yourself to a boat anchor.

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.

Charles Wilson
How is your 1 million km^2 prediction working out?

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?

@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?

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

http://psc.apl.washington.edu/northpole/webphotos/noaa2.jpg
Meltponds are freezing up, which correlates with DMI’s 80N temperatures.

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

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.

Temperature north of 80N went down a tad more:
http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/meant80n.uk.php

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.

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!