Sea Ice News #18

By Steve Goddard

Summer has come to a premature and frosty end at Santa’s workshop.

http://psc.apl.washington.edu/northpole/webphotos/noaa2.jpg

It has been the coldest summer on record north of 80N, and temperatures have dropped below freezing ahead of the average date.

The entire ice covered region is now below freezing.

http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/map/images/fnl/sfctmp_01.fnl.gif

It also appears that the summer melt season will be the shortest on record. The maximum was reached very late in March, and it appears likely that we are headed for an early minimum.

Mark Serreze at NSIDC has stated :

As the climate warms, the summer melt season lengthens …”

He was also reported as saying :

Mark Serreze of the center forecast the ice decline this year (2010) would even break 2007’s record.

Another interesting fact is that we are almost certain to see a large increase in the amount of multi-year ice (MYI) next year. The reason being that almost all of the 1-2 year old ice (turquoise) in the NSIDC map below will become classified as MYI next spring.

We have seen a remarkably rapid recovery from the 2008 low volume.

PIOMAS continues to report record low volumes of ice, despite all evidence to the contrary. The image below shows in red how far off the mark their August 15 forecast was. Their modeling error will get much worse over the next two weeks – because they model much of the thick multi-year ice in the Beaufort Sea and Arctic Basin as only a few tens of centimetres thick.

With the cold temperatures, ice area loss has almost stopped.

http://arctic-roos.org/observations/satellite-data/sea-ice/observation_images/ssmi1_ice_area.png

However, ice extent continues to drop – because the Arctic Oscillation has turned negative and winds are compacting the ice towards the pole. This bodes well for continued growth of ice in 2011.

http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/seaice/extent/AMSRE_Sea_Ice_Extent.png

PIPS shows average ice thickness increasing, due to the compression of the ice.

There has not been a lot of ice loss during August. The modified NSIDC image below shows in red, areas that have lost ice since August 1. Note that the Greenland Sea appears to have lost ice. This is due to the fact that there has been very little transport out of the Arctic Basin through the Fram Strait, which again bodes well for ice gain in 2011.

The modified NSIDC image below shows ice gain since 2007.

NSIDC maps continue to show more gain (16%) than their graphs (10%.)  I have not been able to get a satisfactory explanation from them about the cause of that discrepancy. DMI shows a 25% gain in 30% concentration ice over 2007.

My forecast (dashed line below) minimum of 5.5 million (JAXA) continues to look conservative. It all comes down to what the winds do over the next few weeks. If the winds keep compressing the ice, the minimum may go a little below 5.5. If the winds quiesce, the minimum may come in a little above 5.5 – which is looking like a pretty good number right now. Some people at NSIDC started out with a 5.5 forecast this year, but seem to have backed away from it since.

Academic theories about the Northwest Passage becoming a commercial shipping opportunity appear pretty clueless.

“The plans that you make can change completely,” he says. This uncertainty, delay, liability, increased insurance and other costs of using the Northwest Passage are likely to deter commercial shipping here. A ship with a reinforced hull could possibly make it intact through the passage. But if it got stuck, it would cost thousands of dollars for an icebreaker like the Amundsen to come to the rescue. So even if the Northwest Passage is less ice-choked than before, the route may not become a shipping short-cut in the near future, as some have predicted.

The South Pole will almost certainly set a record for most sea ice this season. It is almost there, and there are still several months of growth remaining.

http://www.iup.uni-bremen.de:8084/amsr/ice_ext_s.png

http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/daily_images/S_daily_extent.png

As seen below, the symmetry between the North and South Pole is impressive through the satellite record.  They always seem to move opposite each other and produce an approximately constant amount of sea ice. It would be nice if the experts focused on solving this relationship rather than making up forced explanations like the “Ozone Hole” – which has just started forming for the year and will be gone before Christmas.

UIUC North/south anomalies overlaid on top of each other.

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

http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/seaice.anomaly.antarctic.png

(Note to posters and ice experts. Before you embarrass yourself making comments about how seasons are out phase at opposite poles, remember that this is normalised data and the period is in excess of 30 years.)

Conclusions:

The “long term trend” (30 years) in Arctic ice continues to be downwards, and would be even if the ice minimum was a record high this summer. But the three year trend shows strong growth of extent, thickness and age. Meanwhile, Antarctic ice is blowing away the record books. Yet the press continues to spread massive disinformation about the state of ice at both poles. Who could possibly be responsible for that?


Sponsored IT training links:

Get COG-112 materials along with 352-001 dumps to practice and pass 000-977 exam in timely and cost saving manners.


Advertisements

  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of
latitude

Morning Gates

Brad

Great article, please keep pushing on the disparities between different sea ice measurements. How can they differ so much? Also, the data that is most striking is the sea ice thickness in the Arctic in 2007, when supposedly we had little ice. As you have stated previously, the thickness makes up for the lack in extent, even in 2007.
Amazingly bad science by the national labs here, only eclipsed by Mann and possibly the idiots using proxies for sunspot number/solar output.

Casper

Something must have happened in the atmosphere or sea currents have been changed. Otherwise I find no explanations for it.

Mustafa

How will they spin the outcome to make it consistent with the orhodoxy if arctic ice extent and area are greater than in 2009? It will be easy to state the trend towards ice-free arctic continues if they are less. I can already picture all the reports and “studies” claiming that 2008 and 2009 were mere blips in a long-term trend!

Steve, the maps show even more Global Sea Ice extent then yesterday.
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/seaice.anomaly.arctic.png
Arctic: -1.294, up by almost .6 in a day.
Antarctic: 1.451, up by 1.5 in a day, approaching a record high, AGAIN
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/seaice.anomaly.antarctic.png
Global Sea Ice is Above Normal, to a modest proportion.
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/iphone/iphone.currentarea.global.html
-Snowlover123

Mikko in Finland

Can you explain why pips shows latitude circles so clearly? I mean, I’ve heard it’s a model and not data. I might think that it shows thickness increasing because of date not fact. Also, there is only the arctic basin ice remaining and not many isolated melting areas. But the less ice border there is, the less thin ice there is, of course, which means average thickness increasing. But you say:
“PIPS shows average ice thickness increasing, due to the compression of the ice.”
Couldn’t you say a bit more about this? How are the pips thickness numbers construed? Further, wasn’t it deviced long ago by the same people who have now studied the phenomena 20 more years and are now at the NSIDC claiming thinning of the ice?

Frederick Michael

Browsing the Arctic temp here:
http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/meant80n.uk.php
This is unlike any other mid-August EXCEPT 2001. I wonder if there’s anything to be learned from looking at how the ice behaved in late August 2001.
However, this year, there is a second unusual effect — no ice is migrating through the Fram Strait right now. I don’t know how unusual this is but I’ve never seen a gap like that before.
http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/daily_images/N_daily_extent_hires.png
This could have big implications for next year.

P Gosselin

5.5 million?
The Arctic would have to set a record low melt for the period August 14 to September 15. Slim chance, but can’t be excluded of course. I think we’ll get closer to 5 million.

Brad

Ahhh, but no need to worry, the folks funded by our tax dollars continue to push the AGW meme – why in the world would the videos available only show the period to 2006, and only in the Arctic? Hmmmm….why would that be….?
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/

Hoskald

Any thoughts on what this portend for the continental US this coming winter? I’m think early…

Where did you get the data for the last (red and green) graph? I am interested in shifting one of the data sets by 6 months to see how well they follow each other — just out of curiosity. — John M Reynolds

I don’t see any indication of significant melt occurring. It is compaction, not melt, we are seeing.

Brad

Hoskald-
I have asked this previously, it might make sense that a cold, early Arcitc would lead to a cold NA, but, noone has ever answered…

Pamela Gray

Mind experiment:
The map Frederick linked to shows that during the period when “average” was calculated, ice generally invaded Fram Strait and showed up as ice extent, even though it was likely on its way leaving for warmer waters. The Arctic Oscillation and weather systems likely set up a wind pattern that forced ice South in order to accomplish this. This tells me that during the period when “average” was calculated, it would be instructive to see how often the wind blew ice south compared to when the wind blew ice north.
So it stands to reason that if there is a multi-decadel pattern to this wind shift, and the wind begins to generally blow ice north year to year during the Summer, the Arctic will gain ice during the Winter. Lots and lots of ice. Now, during the winter when melting is not a concern, if Arctic cold air invades the lower latitudes, WE will gain ice. Lots and lots of ice. Rivers could begin to freeze from the bottom up and Lakes from the top down. This type of thing causes ice jams and frozen flooding, and is cold enough to freeze sewer systems. All of these things are indeed cause for regional-wide crisis management, and usually all winter long, not just during a “cold spell”.
One of the tenets of ice buildup (some call it recovery) says that lack of summer melt is the best indicator of an eventual return to abundant Arctic ice. I don’t know why they call it a “recovery” because under the above circumstances, the Earth’s flora and fauna struggle to recover from ice buildup, and some do not.

GregO

Steve,
Great post.
This year’s arctic sea-ice has been a continuation of arctic ice growth since 2007. Looking into the future (5-10-30 years) could 2007 be a local arctic sea-ice minimum with following years showing ever more arctic sea-ice? Antarctic sea-ice is high in comparison to the records for the last 30 years. I realize it is highly speculative to say this, but what if we are at a turning point in global temperatures?

Cassandra King

The melt ponds are have frozen solid in front of the NOAA pole cam and if they have frozen then its certain that all the other melt ponds are also frozen or freezing.
So much for the positive feedback theory as dictated by our esteemed colleague R Gates in which melt ponds would absorb the suns energy and melt the surrounding ice. So the melting is not coming from below which was always the fall back position and its not coming from above so expect lots more fire’N’floods and no sea ice news.
I would have thought that the early freezing of the ice would make compaction less certain though a close inspection of a polar ice image would sort that out.
There will of course be an MSM blackout of the events in the Arctic unless it can be claimed that the ice is experiencing a death spiral. The evidence is showing an end to the melt season and it will be very interesting to see how the MSM and NOAA spin it.

Colin from Mission B.C.

But, but, but … I thought we’d reached a ‘tipping point’ in 2007?
Joking aside, very interesting ice update, and I must confess that the ice updates on this site are my favorite ongoing reports. Keep up the great work.

phlogiston

Casper says:
August 15, 2010 at 6:59 am
Something must have happened in the atmosphere or sea currents have been changed. Otherwise I find no explanations for it.
One guess – the AMO is starting its sinusoidal downturn from the top. Barents sea temps match the sinusoidal AMO quite closely. This could reduce Atlantic drift warm water input to the Arctic.
See:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/10/08/new-paper-barents-sea-temperature-correlated-to-the-amo-as-much-as-4%C2%B0c/
BTW in a thread this spring when arctic air temps were high, many pro-AGW posters were arguing that air temps determine thickness. It makes sense that air temps influence thickness. Air temps right now would indicate thickening of the ice.

GregO

Anthony,
Sorry for addressing my post to Steven! I should wake up before hitting enter!

S.E.Hendriksen

Here is another break up of Sea-Ice:
http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/images/MODIS/Joekelbugt/20100809AQUA.jpg
650 KM2 according to DMI

Martin Brumby

If they really want a commercially viable Northwest passage, why not build some nice efficient, reliable thermal powerstations up there with some big heating pipes to melt the ice?
They could even tap into all the methane they reckon is under the ice.
Ridiculously expensive, of course. But more affordable than going to a ‘low carbon economy’ NOW. And the plants would LOVE some extra CO2!

BarryW

I’m assuming the overlaid anomalies are area? You would think that some researcher somewhere would be all over this. As I understand it, the argument has always been that the arctic and antarctic would behave differently because you have water surrounded by landmasses in the north and a landmass surrounded by water in the south. I could see the antarctic responding to AGW at a slower rate than arctic just due to thermal mass of the ocean but for the poles to respond in different directions would seem to imply another mechanism at work.
With the temps below freezing in the arctic, if the winds continue to compact the ice (if they’re not blowing things out of the basin or too strong) then we should see an increased divergence between the area and extent. So we might see the area increase while the extent is still decreasing.
The next question is how far south is the freeze line extending and what’s the rate of change.

Walt Meier

Steve,
What are the correlation numbers between the monthly Arctic and Antarctic anomalies? Before you make claims about “symmetry” between the two, you really need to at least do a basic correlation calculation.
In NSIDC’s monthly extent data, it is about -0.16 – essentially uncorrelated.
Walt Meier
NSIDC

Walt Meier

Also, the article that says Mark Serreze forecast this year would break 2007’s record is not a direct quote and is incorrect. Mark is not a forecaster, so he didn’t forecast anything. Second, I’ve never heard him say that we would break the record; he may have said “we could break the record”, which was a possibility.
walt

Alexej Buergin

Here is what the “experts” are prognosticating:
http://www.arcus.org/search/seaiceoutlook/2010/july
For Details click on “Pan-Arctic”.
The Wegener Institute (who know about Eisdeckendicken thanks to Polar 5): 5.56
Hadley Center: 5.5
Meier at al (NSIDC): 4.74
I stick to my prognosis from last year: 5 (because it has never grown 3 years in a row)

Amino Acids in Meteorites

PIOMAS continues to report record low volumes of ice, despite all evidence to the contrary.
…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….
PIOMAS shows the McClure Straits open. McClure Straits location here:
http://img801.imageshack.us/img801/7357/arctic.gif
This PIOMAS computer animation that runs from March to September 2010 shows the McClure Straits opening in July, completely open all of August, and begins to close, but not completely, in September. This computer animation was made using the PIOMAS hypothesis.
http://psc.apl.washington.edu/zhang/IDAO/z.gif
Data from August 13, 2010 shows the McClure Straits are not open
http://img580.imageshack.us/img580/8068/arctic8132010.png
The PIOMAS hypothesis is wrong.

Yngvar

I feel sorry for the penguins. They really have to walk a lot this year.

Ralph

Letter to the prime minister of Britain:
.
Mr David Cameron P.M.
Westminster
Sir,
Still think that the world’s sea ice is ‘melting’ and rapidly disappearing??
Actually, Antarctic sea ice is now at its greatest ever ‘recorded’ extent.
Antarctic sea ice extent:
http://climateinsiders.files.wordpress.com/2010/08/ice_ext_s-2.png
But you will not tell the public this?
Nor will the BBC or the newspapers?
It is against your Warmist religion to tell the truth?
The public should be treated like mushrooms (kept in the dark and fed bullshit) ?
I thought only the former USSR fed their public pure propaganda – are we now worse than the USSR?
And you may not know it, but Arctic sea ice is recovering well from its previous minimums.
Arctic sea ice extent:
http://climateinsiders.files.wordpress.com/2010/08/ssmi1_ice_area.png
And you may not know it, but it has been the coldest Arctic summer ever on record.
Arctic sea ice report:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/08/15/sea-ice-news-18/
Want to pet some more huskies? Or should you join the real world at last?
Sincerely,
Ralph

GeoFlynx

The proximity of this post, which suggests the Arctic cold to be a part of a long term trend, with that of the Russian heat wave, whose cause is dismissed as weather, might be interpreted by some “warministas” as an observational bias.

Alan Simpson not from Friends of the Earth

latitude says:
August 15, 2010 at 6:41 am
Morning Gates
Snigger, it looks like the “canary” decided to keep it’s mouth shut.
Everybody lives, yeah!
How many wheels does this wagon have?

Günther Kirschbaum

Yet another Sea Ice News with no MODIS satellite images or high-resolution ice concentration maps, such as the ones by Cryosphere Today or the University of Bremen. Too bad, they look interesting.
Steven Goddard, how do this year’s air temperatures compare to 2007, 2008 and 2009 around the same date? Not just the DMI modeled temperature above 80N, but the entire Arctic. That should give some perspective to your assertion that “the summer melt season will be the shortest on record”. You could be right, but perspective is never a bad thing, is it?

Douglas DC

Cold nasty winter ahead IMHO. I feel we are one Volcanic eruption away from a
mini ice age..

R. Gates

Steve,
Another very well cherry picked update. Just last week you were asking whether or not we’d end up this year closer to 2005 or 2009. Now of course, we are looking at how close we’ll come in extent to 2008 (since as of today, we are still below 2008).
You keep bringing up the DMI temp data, yet all the melt right now is really based on ice that has diverged over water that is warmer than average:
http://polar.ncep.noaa.gov/sst/ophi/color_anomaly_NPS_ophi0.png
It is the water temps that drive the ice loss this time of year, though I know many readers here really believe everything you say, and that’s fine, but the DMI temps are not that critical and IMO your characterization of the general state of Arctic Sea ice is far off the mark. Eariler this season you were trying to compare 2010 to 2006, and look where that’s gone. Next, you were trying to compare it to 2005, and look where that’s gone. Of course, 2009 is the next mark on your target, and it looks like there is a very good chance now that 2010 extent will certainly be be lower than 2009. Of course that will mean that there will not be a third year in a row of a “recovery”, but I suppose that the AGW skeptics will have to start talking about a “Recovery Spiral”
In all your updates you seem to have completely failed to mention the entire issue of divergence in the ice that occured at the end of July and into August. Instead, you continually equated a slow down in the extent drop during this period of divergence with a slow down in melting, which is simply flat wrong. Both area and extent drop will slow down during this time, which has been happening more frequently as the general ice thickness has fallen over the past few years. Diverged ice lowers the concentration, though the area and extent drops will slow down. And BTW, it is some of this diverged ice, that doesn’t fully melt by the time the freeze up starts in September that will go on to become the much ridiculed “rotten ice”, in David Barber’s use of the term.
The real race now is whether or not 2010 will finish below 2008 or not. This is the most interesting race left. 2010’s melt looks most similar to 2008 here in the final weeks of the melt season. 2008’s low was hit on September 9th, but right now, I see the 2010 melt season lasting longer than that, with the low not being set until Sept. 20th-25th. It is these few extra weeks of melting that could make the difference between 2010 beating out 2008 or not.
You are right about one thing, this year’s melt did not show any change in course to the longer term downward trend in Arctic summer sea ice loss, and moreover, the sea ice spent most of the summer at record low, or 2nd lowest extents, only behind 2007.

Amino Acids in Meteorites

Steven Goddard has said 2010 is tracking similar to 2006. 2006 flattened:
http://img411.imageshack.us/img411/8732/amsre8132010.png
If 2010 flattens it could be above 5.5 in JAXA. As Steven Goddard says it comes down to the winds.
I’m still looking for 2005 to be crossed in DMi.

Gary Pearse

(Sort of on topic – please Mr. moderator?) I watched Gavin Schmidt, Jeffrey Sachs (econ Columbia) and (I forgot who) from the CATO institute talk about global warming on Fareed Zakaria’s “GPS show and was pleasantly surprised at the friendliness of the mini debate. Gavin stated that we can’t draw AGW conclusions from the Russian heatwave or even the cluster of events (Pakistan flood, European flood, Petermann Glacier calving, etc) but there is no doubt that the planet has been warming. There seems to be an official cooling of the rhetoric and hyperbole on the degree of warming and the disaster quotient. Schmidt was quite charming, stating that he was an optimist and that he was certain that America and other countries would rally around solutions before things got too far out of control. The Cato climatologist was also reasonable in that he said sure there has been a warming trend but it is not the trend toward near term disaster that has been stated by the UN. His main point was that the biggest crippler of our ability to deal with it if it became necessary, was the ludicrous idea of destroying the capital that could be needed by bleeding off trillions in taxation to fund useless solutions. He said that whatever new energy technologies that are going to be needed require massive investment in research and development – even if we wanted to we won’t be able to continue burning fossil fuels for more than a century anyway and this has nothing to do with the climate. Only Jeffery Sachs, the non scientist in the group was waxing strongly on the planetary disaster (why is it the butcher, the baker and the candlestick maker have the strongest conviction that disaster is at hand with the climate?).
Anyway, the more considerate tone, the mentioning of uncertainties, the attentuation of the former steep curves, the new research being done….. is a change from the scientific “love-in” of the past couple of decades. This has come about because of the scientific “sit-in” by those skeptical of CAGW. A relatively small handful of intelligent, questioning individuals who were rallying points for many others have succeeded in turning the massive tide and providing alternative ideas for the many to consider – and look at the swing in the polls on the subject. Surely Anthony Watts, among this few has done much more to deserve a Nobel Prize than the recent crackerjack prize winners of the past few years. I’m afraid even if the Hudson River starts accummulating multi-year ice, though, he won’t receive one.

North of 43 and south of 44

Yngvar,
Not to worry the penguins have happy feet,

John M

Walt Meier says:
August 15, 2010 at 8:37 am

Also, the article that says Mark Serreze forecast this year would break 2007′s record is not a direct quote and is incorrect. Mark is not a forecaster, so he didn’t forecast anything.

For not being a forecaster, he does talk alot about the future.
http://climateprogress.org/2010/05/24/arctic-sea-ice-extent-volume-nsidc-record-steve-goddard/
Interesting that there are no recent comments on that thread. 😉

Richard M

Walt Meier says:
August 15, 2010 at 8:37 am
Also, the article that says Mark Serreze forecast this year would break 2007′s record is not a direct quote and is incorrect. Mark is not a forecaster, so he didn’t forecast anything. Second, I’ve never heard him say that we would break the record; he may have said “we could break the record”, which was a possibility.

Walt, have you ever heard Serreze say “we could see a continuing increase in Arctic sea ice”? I didn’t think so. Of course, it was also a “possibility”. Until NSIDC starts producing unbiased press statements their credibility will be questionable. And that affects your reputation as well.
Fortunately, this debate will soon be over once we start getting reliable satellite data.
That is, unless some start trying to compare it to the currently unknown sea ice situation.

PJB

Brad says:
August 15, 2010 at 7:19 am
Ahhh, but no need to worry, the folks funded by our tax dollars continue to push the AGW meme – why in the world would the videos available only show the period to 2006, and only in the Arctic? Hmmmm….why would that be….?
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/
So I sent this e-mail to them:
I would like to know if your web-site http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/ has been updated recently. I only see information up to 2007.
As climate cycles vary with time, I am most interested in seeing where we are now and how the model projections are faring relative to observation.
Thanks.
Maybe they consigned the arctic to the “death-spiral” in 2007 and moved on to greener (because of increased CO2) pastures?
If I get a response, I will post it here.

Amino Acids in Meteorites

Walt Meier says:
August 15, 2010 at 8:37 am
Also, the article that says Mark Serreze forecast this year would break 2007′s record is not a direct quote and is incorrect. Mark is not a forecaster, so he didn’t forecast anything.
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….
If he is not a forecaster then will you get on tv and set the record straight that when he, Mark Serreze, the now head of NSIDC, said Arctic Ice is in a “death spiral” it had no validity because he is not a forecaster?
Mark Serreze is not a forecaster when the only thing that made him known was a forecast?
You take me for a fool?

Amino Acids in Meteorites

Walt Meier says:
August 15, 2010 at 8:37 am
Also, the article that says Mark Serreze forecast …..I’ve never heard him say that we would break the record; he may have said “we could break the record”, which was a possibility.
“Could” is a relative term, isn’t it. The moon could turn toward the earth and crush the Lower 48 States.
When he made that forecast I am sure he wanted the reader/listener to infer that alarming things are happening in Arctic Ice because of ‘global warming’. But for someone in his position to be that far from reality in his statement, that lacking in understanding what is really happening in Arctic Ice, shows something is going on in that government agency other than informing the public about data.

rbateman

Walt Meier says:
August 15, 2010 at 8:33 am
The idea of overlaying the Arctic and Antarctic Sea Ice Anomalies into one graph is MY contribution, as an image processor, to this whole mess. The purpose of my doing that was to highlight the transposition of the overall Arctic/Antarctic longterm anomalies from one pole to the other. i.e – at one time, the Arctic was at a higher than 1979-present overall anomaly than the Antarctic. They have swapped places. I’m sure you remember the Coming Ice Age scare of that time.
There is no Coming Ice Age scare over the Antarctic at present in this Post-Normal Science world.
This, Dr. Meier, is my handicraft: http://www.robertb.darkhorizons.org/seaice.anomaly.Ant_arctic.jpg
I have placed this graphic overlay work in numerous Sea Ice New updates, but until your post, I have not had anything more than a passing notice.
For that matter, the two anomaly wanderings are neither correlated nor in phase, yet they move over time relative to each other.
If you wish to take issue with what my handiwork says or does not say, please take that issue up with me, for I am it’s originator.
It’s my fault, not Steve Goddards.

Walt,
Mark Serreze is constantly being reported by the press as forecasting Arctic ice, and has been for many years. If that is not a role he is comfortable with, he should make that completely clear to the members of the press he is talking to. He certainly has Joe Romm believing that he is a forecaster.
Your north/south correlation isn’t valid because it is probably on too fine a granularity. The northern and southern hemispheres are 180 degrees out of phase (on an annual basis) with respect to freezing and melting. Try doing the same correlation using annual averages based on maximum-to-maximum in each hemisphere.

R Gates,
I have no idea what you are talking about. My forecast has never changed since day one.

Amino Acids in Meteorites

Walt Meier says:
August 15, 2010 at 8:33 am
Steve,
What are the correlation numbers between the monthly Arctic and Antarctic anomalies?

Huh, looking at the graph anyone can there is a relation. You don’t see one?
http://img685.imageshack.us/img685/9959/uiucnorthsouth.jpg

Dr Walt Meiers says about his boss: “Mark is not a forecaster, so he didn’t forecast anything.”
That statement is ridiculous, and it shows the lengths to which underlings will go when they fear for their position. If we take Meiers’ statement at face value, then no one who is not a “forecaster” is allowed to forecast anything.
As a taxpayer, I demand a refund.

Amino Acids in Meteorites

Richard M says:
August 15, 2010 at 10:16 am
have you ever heard Serreze say “we could see a continuing increase in Arctic sea ice”? I didn’t think so. Of course, it was also a “possibility”.
Interesting point. It is a possibility. Especially looking at what has been happening the last three years in Arctic Ice, the sun being quiet, and the slight cooling since 1998.

wayne

Well, my calculated guess at the minimum seems to have been a bit too optimistic this year at 6.12 Mkm2 by IARC extent graph. Since it has already scooted by that, my only hope would be to call an end to the summer melt today! Steve, seems you are more in line with the reality of the matter.

Amino Acids in Meteorites

Günther Kirschbaum says:
August 15, 2010 at 9:20 am
how do this year’s air temperatures compare to 2007, 2008 and 2009 around the same date? Not just the DMI modeled temperature above 80N, but the entire Arctic.
What are the others?

I’m certainly no expert on polar ice, but I do have some simple observations:
1. The Earth dips and bobs in the plane of the ecliptic. As the planet dips and bobs through the plane of the ecliptic, it seems to me that slightly more or less solar radiation would strike each pole (axial pole, not magnetic), and that this would slightly increase radiation hitting one pole while slightly decreasing radiation hitting the other pole.
2. Although the tilt of the Earth with respect to the Moon is constant, it does not follow that the tilt of the Earth/Moon system with respect to the Sun is also constant. There’s got to be some degree of variability in the tilt of the Earth/Moon system (the center of gravity of this system) with respect to the Sun as the Sun’s gravity well drags the Earth/Moon system about the cosmos. This is similar to my point (1.) above.
So, my point would be: the relationship of ice on the axial poles has an inverse relationship due to the mechanics of the solar system. Total ice would be a factor of distance from the Sun and heat. Distribution of ice would be due to angle, and the angle doesn’t change significantly, only ever so slightly.