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 :
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
mcates says: August 24, 2010 at 7:01 pm
when someone can prove to me what causes an ice age. This would be a person who has my full attention.
Hi mcates. Ice ages are caused by changes in the Earth’s orbit. Try for a starter. Take care though – I am firmly in the AGW camp 🙂
and regularly misuse HTML tags…
So Günther’s mind is made up, and by his own admission it can never be changed, no matter what.
No matter how much deodorant you use, Smokey, whether it be roll-on or spray. You have disgusted me so much that AGW is certain to be catastrophic.
Mr. Kirschbaum,
In the world I live in, the real world, not the academic world, hiding data, refusing to release data funded by the taxpayer, refusing to release code, dirty tricks, messaging data, and many other reprehensible acts leads me to believe that perhaps the AGW theory might just be flawed. Or why would its proponents behave in such a way?
The behavior of most of those who would promote AGW theory is not the behavior of rational people who are content in their knowledge, but is more in line with the silly comment you just made. Or worse, much more like the disrespectful, and in some cases, vile behavior of people like Phil.
Günther
You make an excellent case for the idea that the ice is controlled by weather, rather than climate.
Julienne Stroeve says:
August 24, 2010 at 4:34 pm
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?
—…—…—
Let me ask that question a different way:
How many hundred million real, living, breathing, thinking humans do you want dead – or living in poverty, filth, and hunger, dying early of disease and malnutrition – based on the bad science, lies, and religious zealotry of the CAGW community? There is no harm – none, not any, of any kind – and only good from increases in CO2 and increasing temperatures (of up to 2-4 degrees).
So justify YOUR assumptions, your conclusions.
You “claim” that temperature changes of less than 1/2 of one degree between 1975 and 2000 are to blame for ALL of the so-called symptoms of Mann-made climate change (ice extents changes (that have only been observed since 1970), mountain-side, Andes and Alpine glacier losses (losses that started in 1850, losses that reveal trees and graves PREVIOUSLY exposed to the sun and people’s hands in the Middle Ages), ocean level rises (that have risen ever the last Ice Age), increasing Greenland ice thicknesses in the interior (oops – doesn’t match your theory), steadily decreasing summer Arctic temperatures since 1958 (oops – doesn’t match your theory), Medieval temperatures that exceed those found today (oops – doesn’t match your theory), increasing temperatures through the solar system (oops – doesn’t match your theory), rainfall changes and droughts changes (that actually match all earlier patterns), increasing hurricane strength and frequency (that actually isn’t occurring), actual rural temperature records that show NO incerae in temperature (except where manipulated by “climate scientists” out to make tens of billions of bucks …..)
So please. What exactly is your case for condemning these hundreds of millions to increasing energy prices, starvation, death, and illness? YOU are the one who wish their death. I am the one trying to feed them. To get them clean water. Reliable power. Oil and gas to ship their products, and to receive the goods and food and fertilizer they need.
Make your case that 1/2 of one degree change in 25 years is sufficient to yield all the symptoms you describe. Make your case that (unknown, unmeasured, unrecorded, un-cited) “changes” in soot levels between 1940 and 1975 were actually present to cause the decrease in world temperature necessary in “calibrating” the one-ssided climate models that you cite now. But that are so badly off in ten years they can’t even be plotted.
Does anyone know where I can find a freely downloadable copy of this paper please?
Nonlinear threshold behavior during the loss of Arctic sea ice. (PMID:19109440)
Eisenman I, Wettlaufer JS
PNAS [2009, 106(1):28-32]
DOI: 10.1073/pnas.0806887106
All I can get to is the abstract which, as usual with pay-walled publically funded science, tells me absolutely nothing of value.
As for Julienne’s comment earlier, since I have been suitably induced by yet another pay-wall, here is an answer from a member of the great unwashed who [un]fortunately doesn’t inhabit some veritable ivory tower somewhere in the parallel universe she obviously finds herself.
How on earth do you expect anyone to accept a premise with such immense social and economic implications while denied the opportunity to freely examine the detail? And no, where I live public libraries are not an option. I have to fill out a form modelled on the Spanish Inquisition, complete with inside leg measurement and a written justification of why I should even be granted sight of the thing from 100 feet, to even begin the process. The whole journal, peer review system, etc. is an utter inbred scam. I will make my own mind up thank you, based on the actual evidence set forth. Not the ‘persuasion’ of some paraphrased abstract or the alarmist journalism that flows directly (and often deliberately) from it. Nor from some equally loaded ‘sceptic blog’ input. If I cannot rationalise the arguments advanced against my perception of the way the world works, however simplistic or incorrect you may imagine that to be, I will not accept it – period.
In general I find that science needs to clean up its act by learning to write concise, properly structured documents free from trite, arcane academic constructs. An ‘abstract’, jumble in the middle and ‘conclusion’ is hardly a model of clarity, we no longer live in the nineteenth century. The system of citation and cross-reference is even worse. “The Literature” as it stands today is little more than an inaccessible seething mass of ineptitude for which there is little excuse. If you wish to persuade, learn to communicate properly! Using the media, political lobbying and the type of confusion put out by the NASA PR bilge pump as a substitute is lazy, ineffective and frankly naive.
Who knew that the Internet would allow so many “Silver Back’s” to bark at the moon in self important anger… myself included of course… what I find interesting is that we have signs of an extremely long cold winter coming and everyone is arguing about the meaning of rotten, and when rotten first became known as rotten…
J. Knight,
I recommend that you always assume that your opponents have the best of motives and interpret their actions in the best possible light – even to the point of operating from the position that if someone is appearing to engage in dirty tricks then it might not actually be the case, but instead be a misunderstanding. I have certainly found that hyperbole plays a huge role here – your use of the word ‘vile’ to apparently describe rude posting on a message board is an example of this, I suspect.
Climate scientists and their critics are all humans. While this means that they will all do the bad things that we associate with human behaviour, it also means that they will do the good things and the things that are neither good nor bad. A balanced view is the best one to take.
I should note that I often fail in this regard, unfortunately.
mecago,
you remind me a lot of villabollo. Your style is the same. Are you villabollo? A leopard can’t change its spots can it?
Günther Kirschbaum says:
August 24, 2010 at 7:11 pm
I thought the melt was dominated by water temperatures and not air temperatures? That’s what I’ve been hearing time and again in comments. Thus, why should the clouds and low temps matter?
-Scott
Julienne Stroeve says:
August 24, 2010 at 4:34 pm
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?
For the scientists who claim CAGW provide the tests that would falsify their results. For the same group to have some skepticism themselves. For both poles to be “losing” ice. There is no global temperature why do we keep saying there is? If CO2 is well mixed, increasing in concentration every year how can Southern California have such a cool summer? Did CO2 stop trapping heat over LA this year? Why did the Southern Hemispere have some record early snowfalls? It’s GLOBAL warming right?
Before you dismiss my above paragraph as weather events, why did so many CAGW blogs argue that the heat in Moscow this summer is from CO2 while ignoring some record cool spots in the same country? Remember well-mixed gas…
Sure there is evidence for warming events across the globe and for the past 30 years. Is it possible to be within the bounds of natural variability? The CO2 claim is not compelling to me.
I did buy a VW Jetta TDI, sorry though it was for personal economic reasons. It’s quiet, smooth, big trunk and first 150 miles averaging 46.2mpg!
Lessw than two months ago :
Romm:
I guess PIOMAS is wrong
Julienne :
Apparently the old ice has survived.
http://climateprogress.org/2010/06/27/arctic-sea-ice-extent-volume-record-nsidc-volume/
Günther Kirschbaum says:
August 24, 2010 at 5:50 pm
“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?
……..
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?”
All these things are evidence of climate change. That part of the equation is not the problem. The question is what role human activities had in causing that climate change, specifically in this instance, our increased emissions of CO2. This was the question Julienne was asking.
The question can’t be answered until you understand the full range of our natural cycles. And “Yes” there is nothing you can say at this point in time to convince me we have data of a sufficient quality and length to say that we do.
The temperature variations observed during the satellite era are not earth shattering nor are the severe events and other changes that have accompanied them. Do we even know what the normal range of temperature variation is for the PDO cycle say over a 500 year time span? I highly doubt it!!.
We may see dramatic changes but we really don’t know what constitutes the long term natural range of conditions for many of our ecosystems. As for a “once in a thousand year” event in Russia, well show me the 1,000 years of reliable temperature data in that location before you try and sell that one to me.
We have absolutely no sure way of knowing how the data from the satellite era compares with the data of the pre-satellite era. The pre-satellite data is simply too unreliable. At best we have only 30 years of reasonably solid climate data from satellite measurements, the surfacestation data is far too questionable.
Glaciers melting, coral bleaching, rising sea levels, heatwaves, droughts, floods? They are all part of our natural climate cycles. Prove that what we are seeing now is not. You simply can’t do this with the data currently available.
Mr. Gould,
Good advice. And I wasn’t referring to Phil’s disrespectful behavior on this thread as vile, but more of his aggregate behavior both on and off this blog over a period of time. I’m sorry if that offended anyone, but it was an observation, and my personal opinion.
All this is completely off topic, and I apologize to Steve and Anthony for hijacking this thread. Now let me return to being a good lurker and learner, and less a commenter.
RACookPE1978,
From my perspective, the reason that I am an alarmist is that I am alarmed. I think that humankind is facing serious problems, including threats to many millions of lives, due to global warming.
From your question, I think that you and I share a joint wish not to see harm to humankind – we just disagree on what the threats are. I suspect that Julienne does not wish for the deaths of others, as you uncharitably accuse her of wishing; if the threat from global warming is real and is as bad as I believe, can I justify accusing *you* of wishing millions dead? Of course not. So my advice is to think a little bit before you post. If we want to understand one another and promote communication I think we need to be a little kinder to one another.
“Rotten ice” is a venerable old Scandinavian word. Please see this 1999 document, it’s on the 1st page. We Finns call it “puikkojää” (= ‘stick ice’), the Swedes “rutten is” or “rutten drivis” (=’drift ice’).
https://www.ltu.se/webbarkiv/SHB/ice/databas/LOLEIF_1999/Ice_conditions/Ice_charts/ice990512.pdf
I’m a sick person. I found the this thread one of the most entertaining events of my day. Thanks to everyone for some very interesting observations and discussions.
In terms of the next few days and weeks ahead in the Arctic Sea Ice extent, here are some highlights of events to be on the look out for.
1) The extent will fall below Steve’s 5.5 million sq. km. forecast.
2) The extent will fall below Sept. 22, 2005’s low of 5,315, 156 sq. km.
3) The extent will fall below Sept. 13, 2009’s low of 5,249,844 sq. km.
4) The extent will begin to approach 5,000,000 sq. km. as we get into early September (causing Steve to perhaps get a bit nervous, as it is a statistical point of interest for him I should think).
5) The expression “recovery spiral” begins to be used in a pejorative way.
6) Someone from Norway or Russia may become the first modern group to successfully circumnavigate the Arctic sea ice by ship. (some might claim the Vikings did this during the MWP, so I use the term “modern” only out of courtesy for those who hold this view, though I don’t happen to.)
7) And most importantly, we get closer to the day when the CryoSat 2 data is finally released to the “rest of us” and we can finally put poor old PIPS 2.0 to a much deserved final rest and give PIOMAS a much needed boost of actual data.
PIOMAS prediction of arctic ice extent in June: 4.7 million
Steve’s prediction 5.5 million
If sea ice 5.5 then Steve is closer.
Projection of final ice extent if the rest of the season loses the same as the average for 2002-2009 – 5.081.
Assuming there is a little rotten ice somewhere (but not at the north pole obviously), then it seems reasonable to expect final extent a bit lower than this. Synoptic conditions seem to be persisting in a pattern reasonably favourable for high reduction in extent.
However the 6 weeks or so of cool and cloudy conditions covers what I would guess would be the peak period of solar energy absorption in the ocean. Although June would have slightly higher solar radiation than July, July has much more open ocean, so normally more opportunity to absorb this radiation. As far as I can tell ocean temperatures are pretty much the same as same time 2008/2009, and noticeably cooler than 2007, so perhaps little difference due to this factor.
Amino Acids in Meteorites said:
August 24, 2010 at 6:52 pm
The only reason 5.5 is out now is because of the 300,000 km2 loss last week that was caused by winds. And Steven Goddard has said all along that winds could make 5.5 not happen.
____________________________________
It was 350 000 km2 andSteve said extent loss would decrease by the weekend ( which you said would be right because Steve is good at predicting) but the biggest loss was 80 000 and it was at that same weekend. It was not all caused by winds and Steve has not said all along that 5.5 cannot happen.
Apart from those minor trivia your two sentences are spot on. I think Tamino was once described as Gavin’s pitbull. You seem to be Steve’s lap poodle :p
50k loss today.
Andy
Pamela Gray says:
August 24, 2010 at 6:05 pm
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).
You need to get in touch with this fellow http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/executive-lifestyle/engineer-devises-a-short-cut-to-culinary-excellence/story-e6frg8jo-1225909848919.
David Gould says:
August 24, 2010 at 10:10 pm
RACookPE1978,
From my perspective, the reason that I am an alarmist is that I am alarmed. I think that humankind is facing serious problems, including threats to many millions of lives, due to global warming.
From your question, I think that you and I share a joint wish not to see harm to humankind – we just disagree on what the threats are.
—…—…—
And I repeat – What is the “threat” from increased CO2? What are you alarmed about? Are you worried about increased food production from more CO2? More fodder for animals? More feed? Longer growing seasons? More fuel? Higher drought tolerance? More phytoplankton? More life on earth for all?
Summer Arctic temperatures are cooling, antarctic ice extents are increasing. What do you fear? Your “so-called” theories of solar feedback in the arctic are proved wrong: look at the increase in extents between 2007 – 2008 – 2009 – 2010. You talk about “feedback” but can’t show any locations where it has occurred: the winter arctic ice can expand little (the ocean is bounded by land you know) and the summer is growing colder: Do today’s real-world colder temperatures mean the next ice age is here?
Hansen’s GISS temperatures extrapolations and NSIDC’s hysterical extremism is wrong. And all the while, summer temperatures are decreasing. Show any evidence that your so-called experts are right about ANY prediction they have made.
There is no harm – of any kind, of any magnitude – and only benefits from today’s increases in CO2, and today’s 1/2 of one degree (possibly!) increases in temperature. There is no harm from any temperature increase up to (approximately) 3-4 degrees – and NO evidence or consistent theory that show even a 2.5 degree increase is possible by burning all the available fossil fuels. There IS substantial evidence – which you fear and distort and lie about – that shows such temperatures occurred before naturally. And will quite likely occur again. Naturally.
Yet you demand the absolute and permanent and lasting harm to hundreds of millions of innocents to prevent a non-existent theoretical threat – that cannot be substantiated nor even measured – from potentially occurring hundreds of years from now. Why?
Julienne Stroeve says:
August 24, 2010 at 4:34 pm
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?
Like many WUWT readers (I suspect) I have always been of the opinion that human activities on the scale they have been in recent times (ie with several billion humans) must have some impact on the climate. However, the extent of that impact so far, and how much impact we will have in the future, are completely unknown. Despite the hubris of the modelers, we know next to nothing about how the climate system works.
Understanding weather is an absurdly easy task by comparison, but it is only in the last couple of decades that we have properly understood many of the influences on it. I predict we will not really understand climate for at least a century, if ever.
Well, not YOU. I find your comments here excellent–grown-up and scientifically-spirited–and hope you continue to post. Also, we agree approximately on the likely JAXA ice-extent minimum this year (5.1 million I’m guessing, although I hope it will be above the 5.25 or so set last year).
As a poster above mentioned, I wasn’t talking about each and every climatologist in every instance, but about the establishment, as exemplified by the IPCC. Control of its commanding heights was seized by politically astute activists long ago, and its assessments are untrustworthy. (E.g., to give but one example, its use of a dodgy Hong Kong data point to increase sea level rise.)
More generally I have in mind “the consensus.” E.g., “The (hockey) Team” is similarly untrustworthy. Ditto consensus-science websites, whitewashing investigatory bodies, temperature-fiddling weather services, ARGO-data-hiding agencies, partisan journal-editor gatekeepers and their pet reviewers, dissent-suppressing EPA apparatchiks, debate-dodging establishmentarians, hear-no-evil trend-followers (e.g., those who’ve determinedly ignored Spencer’s paper about how climatology has mixed up forcings and feedbacks and confused cause and effect, and who’ve ignored many other inconvenient findings), etc.
The field has the distinct of institutionalized faddishness and “advocacy research.” As is common in such cases, most workers in the field don’t swallow the entire alarmist case, but they go along with it because they are sympathetic to what the activists are trying to accomplish. (E.g., transition away from fossil fuels, more energy efficiency, and a move toward a more sustainable economy.) Or they are insensibly so biased by “present-mindedness” and the coincidence of rising manmade CO2 that they can’t avoid attributing causation to the latter. There is a Judith-Curry-shaped hole in climatology — a lack of a self-correcting force. There’s no mass conspiracy to push an agenda, but there’s an effective collusion by all to give alarmism free rein. This collusion is why I consider the establishment and its conventional wisdom, considered as a whole, “bad to the bone.”
(I’m guilty of go-along behavior myself sometimes. For instance, I don’t think that “casual” or intermittent second-hand smoke is a danger, but I mostly support laws against it, because I think it’s a Good Thing to discourage smoking. (Actually, my ideal solution would be to exempt electronic cigarettes, which are (?) virtually harmless–and perhaps even to give them away.))
PS: To add one specific response (I could give lots more, but the posters above have mostly beat me to it) to the question about what it would take for me to believe that mankind is heating up the climate, I’d say that I suspect that that we may have done so already with CFCs, but that now that effect is fading:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/22/study-shows-cfcs-cosmic-rays-major-culprits-for-global-warming/
Normally I’m one of the moderates here, but I’m in an irritable mood at the moment as a result of a couple of despicable warmist articles in the latest Wired. (These are probably the result of high-level interference by the magazine’s parent, Condé-Nast, which is associated with a collective journalistic effort under the direction of someone from the Atlantic to conduct a warmist-biased educational campaign.)