By Steve Goddard
NCEP has changed their forecast, and it now appears there will be above normal temperatures over the Beaufort Sea for the next few days.
This will cause continued melt of the low concentration ice, and a downwards drift of the extent line. Daily loss has been declining steadily over the last month, but not enough to keep extent above my 5.5 million JAXA forecast.
Looks like it will be close at the finish line between 2009 and 2010 for JAXA 15%.
The DMI 30% concentration graph looks like 2010 will probably finish ahead of 2009.
Average ice thickness is highest since 2007 and 10% higher than 2009. Hinting at a 10% increase in ice volume next spring relative to 2010.
Barring 2007 style winds, next spring should see a third straight year of recovery since the winter of 2007-2008, when much of the thick ice blew out of the Arctic and melted in the North Atlantic.
Remember the “rotten ice” in 2008, which led to Mark Serreze betting on an ice free North Pole that summer? Looks like we have come a long way since then. Here is what the North Pole looks like today :
Thanks Kadaka for your comment. It reminds me I should have been more specific as to what evidence would convince you. You are right that soot increases snow and ice melt and certainly it would be hard to argue that isn’t a direct result of human activities.
stevengoddard says at 4:07 pm:
“The conversation here is once again turning quite amazing…”
Yes! You’re getting close to Monckton territory! ☺
[snip]
In reverse chronological order, here are my weekly Monday estimates (JAXA 2003-2010 inclusive) for Arctic sea ice extent (date, extent (km^2), standard deviation (km^2));
8/23/2010,4.90E6,0.15E6
8/16/2010,4.84E6.0.22E6
8/9/2010,4.81E6,0.27E6
8/2/2010,4.68E6,0.33E6
7/26/2010,4.59E6.0.36E6
7/19/2010,4.49E6,0.42E6
7/12/2010,4.27E5,0.48E6
7/5/2010,3.97E6,0.53E6
Date of minima is the same for all estimates 9/19/2010.
Chance of 2010 Arctic sea ice extent minima exceeding 5.5E6 < 0.00010% (based off of 8/23/2010 estimate).
While I know the rotten ice issue is contentious, I’ll point out that in this WUWT article where Barber popularized it:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/14/a-look-at-sea-ice-compared-to-this-date-in-2007/
Steve Goddard is not anywhere in the 309 comments that I can find. So it is quite plausible he missed this post altogether.
mecago says:
August 24, 2010 at 3:31 pm
Smokey says:
August 24, 2010 at 2:39 pm
mecago,
I said you’ve picked two bad examples of rotten ice; you did. You’re just backing and filling now, but they’re still two bad examples.
Sigh, I was making a very sarcastic post, I thought that since I made it so obvious… IE: Studying ice melt in Tahiti which makes no sense that it would be apperant. I do realize the term exists, I was just poking fun at the term and at climate scientists. Please forgive me for forgetting the /sarc flags.
I often find terms like this and like to argue why we use them. “Rotten” ice to me as a term (yes I know it exists) is kind of a weird term to use in the first place. I was just poking fun at the word itself…please do not take offense. I was also poking fun at all the huge “tax-payer” funded trips to Tahiti by climate scientists to study “global warming”.
So for my first post, assume its entirely sarcastic…
Phil
You posted a photo from 77 57.1 N and that’s your rotted ice? Do you have a comparison to 2007? To the 20’s, and the 50’s when there was talk of alarming ice loss? To Arctic ice during the Medieval Warm Period?
Alarmism over the Arctic is nothing new. Same alarmism, different faces.
Julienne Stroeve says:
August 24, 2010 at 4:34 pm
This is a question I’ve been wanting to ask for a while, and it’s not just relevant to the Arctic sea ice discussions but to climate change in general: What would it take for you to believe that human activities are influencing the climate system and components of it such as the Arctic sea ice cover?”
Well lets start with being able to properly identify the impact of human activities within natural climate cycles. This requires accurate temperature measurements of those climate cycles over more than one full cycle. As their are full cycles such as the PDO which last for 60 years or more we don’t even come close to meeting this criteria.
The satellite temp record only goes back 30 years and temperature data and reconstructions prior to this are demonstrably unreliable enough to be unable to draw definitive conclusions. Give me another 30 years of satellite data and we’ll be taking a step in the right direction but even then were only measuring one full PDO cycle. Whose to say that the current cycle represents the norm. The current cycle may just be an outlier.
In short, I don’t believe there is any possible way of currently accurately isolating the anthropogenic signal in climate variation. Therefore you cannot measure its impact on the ice. We dont even know what is the norm for the ice pack beyond about 30 years other than anecdotal evidence.
Julienne Stroeve says:
August 24, 2010 at 9:06 am
The ice is currently at 5.5 million sq-km in NSIDC’s ice extent data and I don’t believe the melt season is over quite yet.
I think that was already noted. But thanks for the kind reminder.
macago,
I just read kadaka’s 3:58 pm post that you commented on. You are misrepresenting what he said by picking one sentence out of the context of the post. Then you set up your google strawman and knocked it right down, you brave strawman killer. You are a true internet warrior. I mean that sincerely.
stevengoddard says:
August 24, 2010 at 9:11 am
Phil,
You can’t be serious with that last post. The image you linked is from 77N. It is almost 1000 miles from the pole.
Now that I read through the comments I see you pointed that out too.
Note to readers: Just wanted to head off any possible sarcastic replies, so, my comment about the latitude of Phil’s photo was not a copy of this one above.
Apparently I made a mistake attributing the “rotten ice” term to an NSIDC publication. It was actually a University of Alaska Geophysical Institute publication from 2007, which referenced William Chapman at Cryosphere Today.
September 19, 2007
“Unusually thin, rotten ice” north of Alaska
http://www.gi.alaska.edu/ScienceForum/ASF18/1873.html
I satirized this with a double entendre in a 2008 piece at The Register
Arctic ice refuses to melt as ordered
There’s something rotten north of Denmark
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/08/15/goddard_arctic_ice_mystery/
I have been using the term “rotten ice” and discussing it with NSIDC personnel for several years – long before the Barber piece.
I apologize if I got the reference wrong in the comments section (not the article),but that certainly does not give any the right to call me a liar. The term was in wide use before 2008 and I was quite familiar with it.
From: mecago on August 24, 2010 at 5:11 pm
My Google search terms: national snow ice data center “rotten ice”
The search URL:
http://www.google.com/#hl=en&source=hp&q=national+snow+ice+data+center+%22rotten+ice%22&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai=&pbx=1&fp=77270c398242f538
My post above:
Using last result on first page (result #10)
You:
Obnoxiously condescending.
Julienne,
It wouldn’t take much to convince me (someone who believes human influence is basically negligible compared to nature)
1) A totally open and transparent process
If someone is going to try and convince me that I need to drastically change my life, then they need to release everything. I understand the need for proprietary code and such, but you can’t keep highly relevant information private and tell me the sky is falling. I just won’t buy into that.
2) Scientists who stay out of the politics and the media.
They can say they are just getting the word out and educating the public, but the “work” would speak for itself if it was that convincing.
3) If most other planets in the solar system were going the opposite direction.
This is highly complex with many factors involved, but it would be convincing.
4) If the temperatures in the 1800’s would just stay the same.
They keep getting cooler and I think any reasonable person would conclude that is impossible.
5) If there was evidence in the earth’s history that too much Co2 was a bad thing.
I just don’t see that.
So that is just a start of what would move me. I don’t think I am being unreasonable.
Mark Serreze said it right here on WUWT:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/08/15/arctic-ice-extent-discrepancy-nsidc-versus-cryosphere-today/#comment-32714
Julienne Stroeve says:
August 24, 2010 at 4:34 pm
I already do, I just don’t believe the catastrophic predictions or the blaming of pretty much everything on AGW coming from some people. Nor do I believe that the vast majority of the warming is due to CO2 emissions and that the only way to save humanity is to cut them at all costs. If that was the case, wouldn’t the warmists be drinking only water (no coffee or alcohol), eating only vegetables (locally grown), biking to anything within a 30 mile radius and taking public transportation elsewhere? Oh, and all their conferences would be teleconferences and they’d be willing to seriously debate instead of labeling their opponents and attacking with ad hominems. Nor would they use as their primary argument very uncertain (at best) science like the hockey stick.
-Scott
In short, I don’t believe there is any possible way of currently accurately isolating the anthropogenic signal in climate variation.
But will you ever? And what will it take? Is “isolating the anthropogenic signal in climate variation” the only indicator of the influence of human activities on the energy balance of the system of atmosphere and oceans?
Julienne is asking a very good question: What would it take for you to believe that human activities are influencing the climate system and components of it such as the Arctic sea ice cover?
Would an ice-free Arctic somewhere during summer do it? Would another once-a-1000-years heat wave in Russia within the next 10 years do it? Would an accelerating rate of sea level rise do it? What would it take?
I wouldn’t be surprised if a large part of the WUWT readership can simply not be convinced. Not by anything. Some rationalization or other – probably prompted and served on a silver plate by one of the WUWT authors – will always be found.
Julienne says:
August 24, 2010 at 11:16 am
I don’t know if anyone noticed the large pull back from the Siberian coast today in the AMSR-E imagery. Looks like the Northern Sea Route is likely going to be open again this year.
Thanks for another shot of alarmism.
If you wanted to you could make a case on how Arctic ice is in a growing trend by looking at what has happened since 2007. Instead you imply alarmism because of your talk about trend over the last 30 years, which I have seen in more than one of your comments in other threads. 2007 to 2010 is too short a time frame? Using 1979 to 2007 is any better?
As a scientist you should already know 30 years is an unacceptable time frame for evaluating something like Arctic ice. The time frame is profoundly short and has lead to unscientific conclusions in so many areas of global warming.
This morning at 5 am it was 55 F. At 1pm it was 102F. Going by what my 8 hour trend shows it’s going to be 149F at 9 pm. Any computer model made from my 5 am to 1 pm trend has been showing similar results. So now it’s not a matter of ‘if’ but ‘when’….this is so alarming.
Virveli says:
August 24, 2010 at 11:19 am
I understand at the moment you will be disappointed with the fact that there was no recovery of Arctic sea ice this year.
This isn’t true since average thickness of ice is greater than last year. The recovery from the 2007 minimum continues.
David W, R Gates and mcates, thank you for your thoughtful responses.
mcates I agree that the scientific process needs to be open and transparent, and I’m grateful that I work for an institution that does make the data and the codes used in processing the data available. As for your point #2, I agree we need to stay out of politics, but I also believe we need to communicate our findings not just to each other at scientific conferences but also to the general public. Most of the general public do not attend scientific meetings nor do they read the peer-reviewed literature.
I don’t quite understand point 3.
I can sympathize with your point #4. I’m not a paleoclimatologist and the reconstruction of temperatures from various climate indicators seems not to be an easy task. I would expect revisions to temperature reconstructions to occur as more understanding of relationships between tree rings and temperatures for example is gained. Trying to understand temperatures and climate impacts of more CO2 from proxy data is daunting indeed.
I’ve never seen so many men contemplating the size of a gnat’s ass. So much so that I am beginning to “wonder” about you guys.
The Antarctic Sea Ice is increasing (it flirted with the 2007 all-time record just a few weeks ago – interesting that 2007 was the all-time record). Now there are lots of different theories for why it is not responding to GHG temperature increases.
And there are also solid theories about what influences the Arctic sea ice as well.
There are dozens of more papers on this topic (some of you may recognize the names) and dozens more yet that are related to this topic.
http://seaice.apl.washington.edu/Papers/RigorEtal2002.pdf
http://www.lanl.gov/source/orgs/ees/ees14/pdfs/09Chlylek.pdf
http://www.liberterre.fr/gaiasophia/gaia-climats/dioxyde-carbone/z-pdf-carbone/polyakov.etal.2004.pdf
Note that the AMO was quite low at the start of the year (zero in January) but it has spiked to near-record numbers (April May June July) in response to the El Nino (which it lags behind when it responds to the ENSO although it doesn’t always do so). This is similar to what happened to the 2010 Arctic sea ice trend.
1996 was one of the last years of high Arctic sea ice numbers (2nd highest in fact) and that was also the last time the AMO was really low (below zero) for a sustained period of time. It was also low (in response to the La Nina in 2008 and 2009) and this may have contributed to the recovery in those years.
The correlation over time is pretty solid but it not perfect. Ice declining, AMO rising from 1920 to 1945: Ice increasing from 1945 to 1976, AMO declining: Ice declining, AMO rising from 1980 to 1995, 1998 to 2007, 2010.
geo says:
August 24, 2010 at 4:56 pm
Thank you for telling me what scientists don’t say. Are you willing to also tell us what they do say? If 3 out of 4 isn’t “recovering” than would “4 out of 5″ qualify? If not, tell us what the minimum standard you’d accept would qualify for speaking of “recovering” rather than “recovered”?
*************************************************************************
30 years is the minimum that I’ve heard mentioned, by Climatologists and Arctic scientists, for a trend to just start becoming discernible. Since the Arctic has been losing ice for at least that long it will take the same amount of time of greatly reduced temperatures to “recover” it to the same extent and thickness.
Regardless what the difficulties are in measuring volume, you have to ask yourself, Why is it steadily going down? Furthermore there are other ways of noting the great loss of ice. They don’t have to be accurate to correctly measure gross changes over the decades. It’s like a very nearsighted person being able to see and recognize a bear at ten feet.
Submarines, surface ships and people walking the ice can tell if there are gross changes as they occur. It’s like discerning the poleward and upward (Mountains) migration of animals and plants. You don’t need hyper precision.
As far as Cryosat is concerned, I know that as soon as it gives information that goes against those who don’t believe in AGW, they will be crying foul. Then the issue will be moot because the official belief will become Natural Global Warming. As far as the Arctic is concerned this site, as it already had begun to do not so very long ago, will begin to use the “shoulder shrug technique” by saying that it’s been open before, so what?
What we should be doing while the navel lint grows in our belly buttons till the second week in September is discussing my stupendously good venison soup and the fact that I don’t know exactly how I made it. Especially since I was both sauced and marinated WHILE I made it (hey, I cook with a lot of beer, wine and sherry, so sue me).
We’re using the JAXA figure as our reference here.
I’d have to trust the climatological establishment, which will never occur. They’re bad to the bone. Everything they say is a lie, even the and and the the.