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 :
Cassandra King says:
August 24, 2010 at 9:04 am (Edit)
Is the poster ‘Phil’ crossing the line between debate and rudeness by addressing Steve Goddard as “Goddard”?
Steve has every right to post his thoughts and opinions and posters have every right to questions those thoughts ideas and opinions but in a civil manner.
To Phil I would say, if you cannot engage with respect then ‘realclimate’ is probably a more suitable home for you.
REPLY: Phil. is an academic at a major university, rudeness is one of his regular traits here. – Anthony
#########################################################
stevengoddard says:
August 24, 2010 at 4:07 pm (Edit)
The conversation here is once again turning quite amazing, with the usual cast of characters.
In 2008, NSIDC discussed the “rotten ice” as an indication of a record low forecast minimum. Mark Serreze based his ice free North Pole bet on the thin first year ice.
That is exactly what I said in the article. I can’t (and don’t have any interest) in reading Phil, Mosher, or anybody else’s mind.
###############################################
At least Phil. comes by his rudeness honestly.
Amino Acids in Meteorites says:
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.
But wait, I already know some of you will say the 300,000 km2 loss happened because the ice is rotted and alarmingly thin. And you base that theory on data from 1979 to 2007. I already know that. So no need to tell me again about your wonderful time period that all other time periods in the history of the world are judged by.
*************************************************************************
Hmmmmm, ahhhhhh! Yes!
Man Made Global Warming = warmer oceans = thinning ice=>
* * =>LIGHTER ICE
Man Made Global Warming = more ponding = rotting ice===>
LIGHTER ICE = EASIER TO PUSH BY THE WINDS ICE!!!
Danger, danger, Will Robinson! We’ve been told not to remind Amino Acid of this complex chain of communistic deductive reasoning!
[ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RG0ochx16Dg&feature=related ]
RACookPE1978 says: August 24, 2010 at 11:20 pm
“There is no harm from any temperature increase up to (approximately) 3-4 degrees”
Please read Mark Lynas “Six Degrees”. It is very entertaining and thought provoking. To give one example, at +3C there is evidence that the vegetation holding the dune fields of the Kalahari desert in place will fail and Botswana will be unable to support cattle. (From first hand experience, it is already barely able to support anything else.) Should this come to pass how will this country fair? Perhaps the “no harm” portion of your statement could do with qualificiation.
I continue to urge readers of WUWT to practice informed skepticism. Follow up on Lynas’ book. Follow its references to the source. Judge for yourselves, but judge the information on its merits after reading it.
Julienne Stroeve says:
August 24, 2010 at 4:34 pm (Edit)
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?
###################
AJ Ayers would appreciate this question.
But aren’t temperatures in the tropics expected to rise the least in a GW regime (and in the Arctic the most)?
[snip]
RE: “Günther Kirschbaum says:
August 24, 2010 at 5:50 pm
….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.”
I have a longer memory than some who post here. And the simple fact is that I WAS convinced, until 2007.
I was actually making plans to put an orchard of peach trees in, on my small farm in southern New Hampshire, in order to be the first in the market fresh peaches as the climate warmed. (There is no comparison between fresh peaches and the tasteless, unripe things sold at super markets.) A harsh winter can kill peach trees, this far north, but I was thinking of betting on a gamble that such winters were a thing of the past.
The only doubt I had, concerning climate-science, was due to the fact I love reading of Vikings, and for over fifty years had been studying tales of their adventures. The attempt to erase the MWP grated harshly with the history I had learned. However, if you love history, you have to constantly face revisionists, and I was trying to keep an open mind about the idea that the MWP only occurred in Greenland.
I had no access to Climate Audit or WUWT, and only read what was in the papers.
In 2007 the Alarmist hysteria was at flood tide, and was successfully alarming me, however some of my alarm was due to the strident nature of the Alarmists. I never like to be pushed into buying anything. When salesmen try to rush me, I dig in my heels. Before I planted my orchard of peaches I figured it would be wise to do some research, using the new fangled thing I had discovered called “the web.”
Just over three years ago an article in the Toronto Star alerted me to the existence of Climate Audit, and I glanced over “A New Leader Board At The US Open.” I was utterly amazed that temperature data was being manipulated in the manner Hansen was “adjusting” it. Call me naive if you will, but I felt I’d been a sucker and a chump, and became far more skeptical and even cynical. It was like scales fell from my eyes.
That was before the big uproar about the ice melt in September, 2007. However I studied all the views about that ice melt even as the ice melt happened. I have a very clear memory of the sensationalism, and the way the main stream media took the story and ran with it, (though they ran with it a bit like a gerbil in a wheel.)
It is a bit absurd, at this late date, to pounce on Mr. Goddard for associating the words “rotten ice” with Mr. Serreze, when Mr. Serreze may have actually used the word “thin ice.” Anyone who was there recalls how the media bandied about the word “rotten,” and how Mr. Serreze lapped up all the attention like a cat does cream. I challenge anyone to find a quote indicating Mr. Serreze objected to the words “rotten ice.” Anyway, does this trivia matter? The absurdity of this fuss over tiny details is wonderfully encapsulated by Pamela Gray’s statement, ” I’ve never seen so many men contemplating the size of a gnat’s ass.”
Those of us who were alive back in 2007 recall all the media hoop-la. The arctic was suppose to be ice-free by 2010. Is it?
And don’t give me all the guff about how Alarmists said, “maybe,” might” and “could.” The hoop-la was what it was, and said what it said.
We were being rushed into buying a car, and were told we need not look under the hood. However we have looked under the hood, and what we have discovered is a bunch of gerbils running in a wheel.
” Julienne says:
August 24, 2010 at 11:13 am
I think you know that the 5.5 million sq-km prediction we made based on ice survival rates was never what we actually thought was going to happen.”
That may be the trouble with climatology. They make predictions they know are not going to happen.
People at SEARCH are allowed to make their last prediction in August (for September of the SAME year), and they are allowed a great big Standard Deviation (which defines the interval that covers the correct value with a probability of about 2/3). Anybody except Wilson can get that right.
So Steven Goddard’s prediction of 5.5 from a few month ago just means “a bit more than last year”. And my prediction of 5 means “a bit less than last year” (which was the reasoning, since ice never grew 3 years in a row before).
We were being rushed into buying a car, and were told we need not look under the hood. However we have looked under the hood, and what we have discovered is a bunch of gerbils running in a wheel.
That sounds like it’s CO2-neutral. You’ll be saving tons of money. 😛
Ammonite,
I am familiar with articles such as that. And as one reads it we can see it starts off with the words “Milankovitch Theory”
And like you I think this is a viable theory. Now just prove to me that he is correct in his theory.
Perhaps you could accurately predict the next ice age?
Julienne,
One other thing that would help me increase my conecern regarding man-made global warming is for someone to show me that the fate of man-kind hinges moreso on that than getting struck my a large meteor.
And I want to second this comment by Alex as my stated position also:
mecago,
C’mon? Isn’t this kind of talk part of the problem? “Withouth making the slightest effort? You can’t possibly know that.
Just cause someone doesn’t agree with one of these Climatologists doesn’t mean they didn’t read what they have to say.
Granted, you may have a point about “not listening to us”. I think most people have a natural filter for exaggeration. This isn’t intented to be rude, just to weed out comments like the one above.
Many have made comments about how they could be convinced of the seriuousness of AGW. I think it would be a good exercise for the pro-AGW crowd to list which requests were unreasonable.
If you can stand one more citation on “rotten ice”, that term is used on the U.S. Navy Hydrographic Office Ship Ice Log form H.O. Misc. 15584 (Revised 1-55) under Table 5.” Puddling”, which has 10 different descriptive variations of puddling.
So rotten ice is indeed U.S. Navy bureaucracy approved since at least 1955.
Steven Mosher,
I m going to ask you politely to stop libeling me. Your accusations incorrect, rude, without base, and unacceptable.
I wrote :
This was in reference to Mark Serreze who said :
There was extensive discussion in late 2007 and early 2008 about thin, “rotten” ice in the Arctic.
http://www.ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=43803
http://www.gi.alaska.edu/ScienceForum/ASF18/1873.html
http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5j5pc5zD_AGm2eKbIuBAEGV5W0pqg
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?
———-
Julienne,
One thing I would like to know is what is the amount of additional energy that is being held in the earth’s climate system due to the increase in CO2?
I’d like to see both the theoretical number based on the physics and the supporting data from real world measurements.
If this was expressed in joules per year that would be great.
Thanks,
-Jeff
@stevegoddard
Julienne :
The thing to look for right now is persistence of the Arctic Dipole we’ve seen this June. If that continues all summer like it did in 2007 then I think we’ll be close to 2007 values by September. There are strong meridional winds pushing ice away from the coast of Siberia at the moment (like what happened in 2007). Also Nares Strait is open like it was in 2007 which can help to remove more of the old ice in that location.
Very interesting quote – so we have very similar conditions to 2007 but an ice extent that will never get anywhere close. So will Julienne et al. take the logical and honest conclusion that the ice volume has increased since then – like snip they will!
Excerpts from: Ammonite on August 25, 2010 at 12:29 am
About that book…
Compare this to the National Geographic write-up of the book, as found packaged with the online accompaniment to their TV series “Six Degrees: Could Change The World”:
Nat Geo: “…would be enough to destroy much of life…” Compare to first source.
BTW, it’s been thrashed out before on this site how Kilimanjaro is a land use issue (deforestation), here’s a Nov 2, 2009 sample. And how the “atoll nations of the Pacific” are not disappearing inch by inch under the waves.
Anyone know anything about those “massive boulders on the Matterhorn”?
AJB says:
August 24, 2010 at 9:23 pm
Does anyone know where I can find a freely downloadable copy of this paper please?
Try here.
http://pantheon.yale.edu/%7Ejw378/articles/E&W_Bif_PNAS.pdf
Alexej Buergin
NCEP has changed their forecast again, and it now looks like strong, southerly winds will continue for at least a week. Yesterday they were forecasting extensive cold by the end of the month.
You may well be correct with your 5.0 forecast.
[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4HTJ7SWeC0g]
In France, where knowing how to live is an art, they call it “savoir vivre”:
—- If you think somebody is a complete idiot, go out of your way to be extremely polite to him —-
People read WUWT for the information provided; rudeness is a hindrance (is that the purpose?). It should be censored, as should be too many comments by one person, and too long ones.
Cassandra King says:
August 24, 2010 at 9:04 am
Is the poster ‘Phil’ crossing the line between debate and rudeness by addressing Steve Goddard as “Goddard”?
I don’t believe that I did and I addressed your remarks in a post yesterday which appears have been ‘lost’, perhaps the moderators can fish it out of the spam?
I would point out that US modes of address/familiarity are not universal.
Mosher has never told me that I should address him as ‘Steve’ rather than ‘Mosher’ for example.
Vince Causey says:
August 24, 2010 at 1:09 pm
I notice that there have been some comments on a posters rudeness, and this has provoked a flurry attacking the first group. In general, I have observed a tendency of people behaving in a way on blogs that would not be acceptable in a social context. Imagine this was a social gathering, we’re all standing around chatting, Steve Goddard says something about sea ice, and suddenly somebody shouts out, “Hey Goddard – you’re talking nonsense etc.” Wouldn’t people start commenting on that? “Who is that rude guy? Where’s he come from,”
But that is not the correct context, this is a ‘Science blog’ after all.
The correct context would be someone making a presentation and then the session is opened to questions from the floor. That’s something I have a lot of experience of from both sides. In that context it might be appropriate to use a title but what title do you use with a pseudonym? Someone standing up and saying “Goddard your comment about ‘rotten ice’ at the pole is nonsense…….” would be quite normal.
Julienne,
It is clear that wind determines the summer extent numbers.
Is there any reason to believe that the behaviour of wind in the Arctic is related to atmospheric CO2?
R. Gates says:
August 24, 2010 at 10:28 pm
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…….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”
I don’t think anyone is claiming the Vikings circumnavigated Arctic ice. I have never heard that. But they would claim Vikings sailed along the northern shore of Greenland. This “modern group” sailed south of Greenland. You can see that in page 1 of their PDF.
And you should have read up on what they did before commenting on them. They did not stay in water for the entire route. From page 2 of their PDF:
“Circumnavigating the Earth on the Arctic Ocean in a single summer is an impossible challenge – if you try to do it the traditional way. It would simply take too
long. Instead of using a heavy, deep-draught steel vessel, like previous expeditions,
we have chosen a light and lithe trimaran. Having a draught of only 40 cm, this
three-hulled sailboat can attain a speed of 20 knots, and can easily be pulled onto
the shore to avoid pack ice.”
link to PDF
http://www.corsairmarine.com/UserFiles/Image/The%20North%20Pole%20Passage_Ousland%281%29.pdf
In case it was not noticed, they did not stay in the Arctic Ocean. Going south of Iceland and Greenland put them in the Atlantic Ocean.
page 2 of their PDF
“Circumnavigating the Earth on the Arctic Ocean…”
They went into the Atlantic Ocean for part of the journey.
Alex Heyworth said:
“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.”
_________
I would disagree. I think we know quite a bit about both, but knowing and predicting a system that has chaotic elements are two different things. If it begins to rain, trying predicting exactly where each raindrop will fall on your windshield (that is like predicting the weather), but you can predict that the your windshield will be wet.
Joe Bastardi said “2 steps forward 1 step” back in his Arctic ice prediction for this year. 2 steps forward since 2007, that is, 2008 was higher than 2007, and 2009 was higher than 2008. 1 step back meant 2010 would be lower than 2009. He pointed to the warmth in the Atlantic left there from the El Nino that ended in May. But then he continued by saying there would be a dramatic increase over 2010 in 2011. He may be right. He’s much smarter than the YouTube documentary gave him credit for!