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.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
A german site shows this:
http://www.iup.uni-bremen.de:8084/amsr/ice_ext_n.png
Little below 2008 and steeply going down.
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.
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 😉
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… 😉
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.
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.
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.
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.
NeilT
Area is dropping slower than extent. Your analysis is flawed.
Idiot
I have written lots of articles recently showing that PIOMAS is grossly incorrect.
Perhaps you should read more and talk less?
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.
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 5:46 am
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
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.
Steve, tea-leaf reading of the JAXA data …
http://img245.imageshack.us/img245/5761/graphuv.png
… 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?
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.
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.
NeilT
75% of the ice is fragmented every summer. Concentration has been higher than normal this year.
Scott,
http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/seaice/extent/AMSRE_Sea_Ice_Area.png
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?
The timing of the summer stability has to do with the angle towards the Sun.
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.”
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.
George E. Smith
You can always tell how valuable a data source is by how vociferously AGW types go after it.
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,
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/seasonal.extent.1900-2007.jpg
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.