Sea Ice News #20

To paraphrase Kansas
CO2 in the wind
all we are is CO2 in the wind
CO2 in the wind
everything is CO2 in the wind

While the extent of melt in 2010 looks similar to 2009, the re-freeze will likely be quite dramatic. If the cruise ship Clipper Adventurer now grounded in the north west passage cannot be freed soon, it may be there for some time. Ice breakers are apparently on route to free passengers, but is the ship itself is not freed it could become a semi permanent monument to AGW alarmism.

The next Catlin expedition can base itself at the Clipper Adventurer winter resort, Konrad!
Interesting following this particular year’s weather cycle, anyhow.

Very similar to 2009 and 2010 is an El Nino year…

Steve,
First you tell us it’s all down to wind then you show us a graph of temperature, which is it?
Godthab Nuuk is at 64 degrees north is south Greenland, hardly representative.

Extra bonus : Does anyone see a familiar pattern (below) in Greenland temperatures?
Heavy upslope, slow downtrend, crash, heavy uplope (slow downtrend , crash?).
Hmm.

rbateman says:
August 29, 2010 at 4:22 pm
http://www.montrealgazette.com/news/Cruise+ship+runs+aground+Canadian+Arctic/3457291/story.html
Maybe that’s what happened to the 2 mapping ships never seen again, for which the Investigaor & crew paid a similar price.
The NW passage is not charted for safe passage, nor is it open for long, when it is open.
Caveat Emptor on the sport of NW Passage dashing.
======================
“Fools rush in where angels fear to tread.”
Alexander Pope

Steve,
Your Greenland temperature plot doesn’t seem to have had all the appropriate adjustments made to it. How unscientific of you.
Mike

bubbagyro says:
August 29, 2010 at 5:12 pm
u.k.(us) says:
August 29, 2010 at 4:59 pm
“The cruise ship operators are insisting that Canada supply a permanently stationed helicopter for rescue purposes. Supplied by Canada, of course! A sense of entitlement becomes swagger…then hubris!”
Hope all those fools get charged $10,000 each for the rescue and trouble to the government to save them on that unnecessary cruise into danger.

Mike G
Actually the Greenland plots have been adjusted by GISS, and they still come up short of the 1930s.

Cherry picking greenland’s temperatures from one station?

Werner Weber says:
August 29, 2010 at 4:35 pm
Steve,
in all your sea ice discussions you never mentioned (as far as I recall) that we had last winter a very strongly negative arctic oscillation (shift of the polar vortex). Such strongly negative values have not been shown up since those cold years of the sixties. See http://www.cpc.noaa.gov/products/precip/CWlink/daily_ao_index/month_ao_index.shtml
================================
Your recollection is not good:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/03/31/arctic-sea-ice-about-to-hit-normal-what-will-the-news-say/
Chris
Norfolk, VA, USA

Werner Weber says:
August 29, 2010 at 4:35 pmThe negative arctic oscillation has given to Eurasia a very cold winter, but not to North America. There, temperatures were not that cold, as a consequence the ice coverage on the Great Lakes was small and Hudson Bay sea ice was thin.
=================================
Everything in this statement is completely wrong.
To pick and chose one of those errors:
Maybe you should ask Lake Erie that question of “small ice coverage”.
Size matters….
http://www.goerie.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20100210/NEWS02/302099905
Chris
Norfolk, VA, USA

Werner Weber says:
August 29, 2010 at 4:35 pm
I recall weeks last winter where West Greenland coastal temperatures have been higher than those in Germany.
======================================
So???
There were times during the last winter when northern Florida in the US was colder than Fairbanks Alaska!
Big ******* deal.
Not outside the envelope of natural variability…variability that has been “variableing” [lol] for about 4.6 billion years now.
Chris
Norfolk, VA, USA

Stephan
Given the unpredictable variability in weather, +/- 10% seems to be about as good as anyone could possibly hope for on a long term prediction basis.

CRS, Dr.P.H. says:
August 29, 2010 at 5:28 pm
3 METERS OF WATER?? Who was the captain, Hazelwood??
===========================================
It was a really really big rock, about the size of an island. 😉
Down here we call it running aground!

“Julienne Strove from the NSIDC asked last week what it would take to be convinced of man’s influence”
Good Lord, what a question to ask.
I can’t imagine how pompous someone would have to be, to actually believe that we know enough to predict anything, much less know enough to tell what affect a trace gas has on our atmosphere. Almost every day something comes out to contradict something that we though was true the day before.

savethesharks says:
August 29, 2010 at 6:20 pm
When the shark bites…..
from the same article concerning an almost frozen over lake Erie,
“- While most of our lake-effect snow comes from westerly winds over Lake Erie, some of it comes from Lake Huron, which is mostly still open, LaPlante said”

Werner Weber Dec 13 coldest temp ever recorded in Edmonton by a wide margin.
CRS, Dr. P.H. Hazelwood was not required on the bridge and the Coast Guard saw the ship go off course but it was not their mandate to report.

CRS, Dr.P.H. says:
August 29, 2010 at 7:53 pm
“Julienne Strove from the NSIDC asked last week what it would take to be convinced of man’s influence”
…how about some honest, rigorous scientific investigation based upon sound, repeatable methodology, exhaustive statistical analysis, independent replication, honest peer review and widespread availability of codes and data?
Not much to ask for….
—
Would that apply to both sides?

Scott says:
August 29, 2010 at 8:23 pm
After the last two days’ brutal losses, I was pretty down on this year’s chances of staying above 5.1e6 km^2. However, the preliminary JAXA number for today shows a gain of 2500 km^2. We’ll see if the gain is true when the final number is posted tomorrow.
—
So we will, the fragmented ice shifts easily and areas of 30% or more extent can easily spread enough to counter the ‘melt’, for as long as it stays above 15%. Sea ice extent variation is not only due to melt but also spread. Tomorrow, or later we may see the wind compacting ice, giving a large ‘melt’number. The people here should not be so hung-up about sea ice extent and worry more about sea ice volume. It is the amount of ice by volume that will determine reality. I’m prepared to wait for Cryosat and in the meantime stare at the cube of ice in my glass of white still melting; my wife’s ice is gone, she prefers crushed ice. Why does that make me think of the arctic?

baffled24 says:
August 29, 2010 at 9:27 pm

So we will, the fragmented ice shifts easily and areas of 30% or more extent can easily spread enough to counter the ‘melt’, for as long as it stays above 15%. Sea ice extent variation is not only due to melt but also spread. Tomorrow, or later we may see the wind compacting ice, giving a large ‘melt’number. The people here should not be so hung-up about sea ice extent and worry more about sea ice volume. It is the amount of ice by volume that will determine reality. I’m prepared to wait for Cryosat and in the meantime stare at the cube of ice in my glass of white still melting; my wife’s ice is gone, she prefers crushed ice. Why does that make me think of the arctic?

Yes, I’m well aware of the possible behaviors of the ice, as I’ve been following this quite a while. Did you see me use the word “melt” anymore in my comment?…no, you didn’t. Funny that you mention melt and not freezing though…
And yes, we’re hung up on extent because that is all that’s currently available right now…what do you want us to do? Also, if I recall correctly, the experts (and non-experts too) threw a real fit in 2007 when the extent dropped so drastically. As for Cryosat, I’m afraid that mission failed back in 2005. Instead, I’m waiting for Cryosat-2 data to start coming in…but it’s not going to be useful for comparison purposes until several years of data are available, as a baseline needs established.
As to your glass analogy, is that why you think the ice extent is decreasing, because it’s been “crushed”? If so, what does this have to do with CAGW?
-Scott

baffled24 says: “Answer a question with a (ridiculous) question?”
The question in response is no more ridiculous than the original. If the question in response is ridiculous, than so is the original. Am I, therefore, supporting Mr. Goddard’s question as reasonable? Well, no. It’s ridiculous, as the original question is one of the oldest (and quite possibly the oldest) ridiculous questions in the book. I strongly suspect Mr. Goddard of applying a rather Socratic rhetorical technique to point this out; although if Ms. Strove is over literal minded and unskilled in the fine art (it appears it is no longer a standard part of scientific training; more’s the pity) she will miss the point entirely.
“It was perfectly answerable, so why the dodging?”
What will it take to be convinced of the boogyman/fairies/gods living in my socks? No dodging.

Policyguy at 10:28pm August 29th said:
“You might also ask her why its so cold in the US in August?”
Where do you live? HPRCC shows an overwhelming majority of the US at above normal temps for the month of August to date. Roughly half the US has seen temps >2F above normal.
http://www.hprcc.unl.edu/products/maps/acis/MonthTDeptUS.png

Extent is up but area on Cryosphere is down so the winds Steve mentions definitely playing a big part now. The Low and High pressure areas have swapped positions recently.
Andy

Travis says:
August 29, 2010 at 10:46 pm
Policyguy at 10:28pm August 29th said:
“You might also ask her why its so cold in the US in August?”
Where do you live? HPRCC shows an overwhelming majority of the US at above normal temps for the month of August to date. Roughly half the US has seen temps >2F above normal.
—————
Travis
I’m in northern California. Normally we have a dozen or more plus 100 days.
This year we had about four. This last week end we went to soccer tournaments in blankets with morning temps in the low 60’s.
Where are you??

I would expect more news about the Northwest passage and the Northern Sea route. Baltica, a ship carrying natural gas, has made it through, with the help of 3 nuclear icebreakers. Check it out at http://ecotretas.blogspot.com/2010/08/scf-baltica-and-northern-sea-route.html
Ecotretas

jt says:
August 29, 2010 at 11:51 pm
and yet, more than 100 years after it was first proposed, nobody has disproved AGW. What’s wrong with all you deniers?…it should be so easy….unless the theory is true of course, but surely that can’t be it…
What theory? No-one has yet proven the theory of CO² v AGW. You need to read more. Proof means means that when they run their climate / weather model they don’t breakdown after 12 hours, Proof means that when they do a backcast and a forecast they are both correct to 0.1°C (20%), proof is that when they use their clilmate model to predict bar-b-q summers they actually happen, proof is that when they predict warm winters we don’t get buried in 6 feet of snow.

jt
let me give you a theory. There a people living on Mars. Prove it, go on! Sound familiar.
AGW is true, go on prove it. Sound familiar? You are clearly not a scientist. Perhaps a young greeny beeny?

MarkG says:
I can’t speak for the US, but here in Canada we’ve had the furnace on for the last few days in what is supposed to be not just summer but one of the warmest summers since records began.
Same in South Colorado, last three nights! Summer is over before it’s over.

Roger Knights says:
August 30, 2010 at 1:13 am
Just to clarify: It made it through the Northeast passage
Nowadays, the “Northeast passage” it’s called “Northern Sea route”. Please check it out at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northern_Sea_Route. But you are right in the sense that it was not through the Northwest passage, as some might be led to believe.
Ecotretas

These Arctic sea ice posts are always interesting but I still can’t see quite what all the fuss is about. If all the Arctic north of Iceland was frozen solid or if there was no ice in the Arctic at all, I would remain unconvinced that it hadn’t happened before and also unconvinced that mankind’s fairly trivial emissions of a useful trace gas was more responsible for ice levels in the Arctic than the activities of herds of elephants in Africa.
The warmists coming on here for an argument might like to answer my question.
At present in the UK we have around 3000 wind turbines which despoil the natural beauty of our landscape, shred large numbers of birds, adversely affect the quality of life of those who live near them. The electricity they produce is ridiculously expensive compared to fossil fuels or nuclear. It is also extremely variable and unreliable and requires not only hydro & pumped storage installations but a number of gas turbine generators to be kept on “spinning standby” to balance fluctuations in output to try to prevent the grid from being unbalanced leading to massive blackouts. The cost of this and the infrastructure needed to connect the wind turbines to the grid and the equipment needed to rectify the fluctuations in frequency is absolutely enormous. The output of all 3000 turbines contributed on average just 0.8% of the electricity needed in the UK between January and June 2010.
Note, all of this is fact and can easily be checked, it is all stuff which is well understood (which is more than can be said for the behavious of sea ice). There is no need to debate whether ice is old or new, thick or thin, rotten or whatever.
My question is, what would it take for me (and all the other sceptics – especially those in the UK who are paying for all this with hugely inflated electricity bills) to be convinced that it will be a sensible idea to build another 10,000 wind turbines as a matter of urgency to save the planet from some shroud waving doom scenario dreamed up by a bunch of rent seeking “scientists” using blatantly cherry picked & fiddled data and corrupt methods which they take good care to hide from those wishing to replicate their results?
For myself, I have to confess that the total disappearance of sea ice in the Arctic wouldn’t even come close.
The “war against global warming” is actually a “war against the poor”.

“Julienne Strove from NSIDC asked last week what it would take to be convinced of man’s influence.”
Julienne,
I’m sure most people here, as well as the IPCC, would welcome seeing any form of evidence of AGW.

This one is for Julienne
http://climexp.knmi.nl/data/icrutem3_hadsst2_0-360E_70-90N_na.png
Except regular cyclical pattern, where exactly is the sign of human influence? And is it me, or Arctic temps are going downhill for future decades again?
Gothab Nuuk looks strange, but it is not far from the Greenland average:
http://climexp.knmi.nl/data/icrutem3_300-340E_55-85N_na.png

Yo Travis, dont try to bs this Or. peach grower about temperature. We will be up to two weeks late picking this year because of low temperatures during our August ripening. That is if the rains hold off long enough that we dont lose the late peaches.

Ok, so there was no recovery of sea ice extent this year, and thus the declining long-time trend is continuing. Will the WUWT policy be to continue waiting for the recovery in the coming year as well? I have a gut feeling some of the most keen observers here actually might want to move on with the discussion.

RE: Policyguy August 29, 2010 at 11:38 pm, johnmcguire August 30, 2010 at 4:10 am:
Policyguy, I live in western Washington state. We’ve had a cooler summer interrupted by two spells of record heat, so things have averaged out here.
johnmcguire, I’m not trying to BS anything or anyone. I wasn’t trying to deny that it has been cooler than normal anywhere in the US (and I was not making any statements about Canada either). I said that a vast majority of the US is above or significantly above normal temperatures this month and backed up my claim with real data. I did not make any alarmist claims; I just stated a fact. I did not claim it was HOT everywhere, or that everywhere has been above normal every day this month. I am sorry for your troubles, especially given that I am such a fan of peaches, but I’d appreciate it if you did not accuse me of BSing things that I am clearly not making up.
http://www.hprcc.unl.edu/products/maps/acis/MonthTDeptUS.png

The final days of the 2010 melt season are here and the horse race is on.
2010 is the 9th year in the JAXA record. How will it place?
Today 2010 has the Goddard Minimum beat. Wow!!! I had no idea if Steve’s “Theory of Increasing Sea Ice” would be supported by the data or not when this all started but I am quite surprised that his theory was busted… in August!
Let’s look at the standing.
2003 Min.: 6,041,250: Busted 8/14/10
2004 Min.: 5,784,688: Busted 8/19/10
2006 Min.: 5,781,719: Busted 8/19/10
2002 Min: 5,646,875: Busted 8/22/10
Goddard Min: 5,500,000: Busted 8/26/10
2005 Min: 5,315,156: ????
This puts 2010 in the top five lowest sea ice extents in the JAXA record and it’s still August.

Paul J says:
August 30, 2010 at 4:08 am
I cannot understand why anyone should get excited even if ice extent falls to new lows.
During the winter the ice extent was above average and now it is maybe a bit below average. So over the year the average is – well pretty average!
———–
Paul,
The only problem with your post is that sea ice extent in the arctic never went above average in the winter of 2010. You may have gotten this misunderstanding from all the excitement earlier in the year when ice extent increased enough to come closer to the average than it has in quite some time but it never hit the average let alone exceeded it.

stevengoddard says:
August 29, 2010 at 9:44 pm
baffled,
Much of the Arctic is forecast to be between -5 and -10C during the next two weeks.
There is another behaviour of ice you are not mentioning – called freezing.
—
The melt will continue from below in the warmer water, any snowfall will act as a blanket, reducing ice growth from the air temperature.

Steven Mosher
Oddly enough, no two stations are exactly the same over a one hundred year period.

Steven Mosher says:
August 30, 2010 at 9:10 am
“Yes. More important is this. The important skeptical arguments ( about sensitivity) get drown out by the increasing cacophany of spurious chattering. All the bandwidth is sucked up by shallowest most misleading voices.”
One of the lamest arguements I have read in awhile. Please describe how much “bandwidth” there is and how much the “spurious chattering” is using so I may evaluate if any remains. I would label your arguement more of a whine or an excuse rather than anything constructive or responsible.

Policyguy says:
August 29, 2010 at 11:38 pm
Travis says:
August 29, 2010 at 10:46 pm
Policyguy at 10:28pm August 29th said:
“You might also ask her why its so cold in the US in August?”
Where do you live? HPRCC shows an overwhelming majority of the US at above normal temps for the month of August to date. Roughly half the US has seen temps >2F above normal.
—————
Travis
I’m in northern California. Normally we have a dozen or more plus 100 days.
This year we had about four. This last week end we went to soccer tournaments in blankets with morning temps in the low 60′s.
===========================================================
I’ve got to say I agree with this. Kansas City is well below our “normal” number of 100 or even 90 degree days. I’ve lived within 20 miles of where I do now for the past 40 years, and there’s no way we are 2-4 degrees above “normal” as suggested by the link Travis supplied to the HPRCC data.
A coworker at the office was commenting on having to wear a jacket during his morning motorcycle ride in, in August! Unheard of.
Anecdotal, I know. A small sample area, I know.

Virveli says:
August 30, 2010 at 5:30 am

Ok, so there was no recovery of sea ice extent this year, and thus the declining long-time trend is continuing. Will the WUWT policy be to continue waiting for the recovery in the coming year as well? I have a gut feeling some of the most keen observers here actually might want to move on with the discussion.

Again, people are assuming this year is going to finish below 2009 and are asking these questions. Yes, 2010 is trailing 2009 by ~180000 km^2 as of Aug 29, but it’s still above 2009’s minimum by ~103000 km^2, so there’s still a very slight possibility of it staying above 2009 (there’s also the possibility of it going below it in just a couple days too, LOL).
Given the strong El Nino this year coupled with the fact that 3 consecutive years of extent growth have not been previously recorded, I’d say that staying above 5e6 km^2 isn’t so bad (and there’s roughly a 50% of this still happening). I’m sure many people will disagree with me there.
On the other hand, where are these massive losses that the CAGW experts have been predicting? Shouldn’t we be lower than 2007 by now…we’ve had 3 years to go below it, right? Instead, we may still end up with 20% more extent than 2007’s minimum.
At this point, it looks like the 2010 ice extent is going to fall into an uncomfortable middle ground where neither camp can declare victory. It’ll be funny though because parts of both camps will likely try to claim victory. 🙂
-Scott

JAXA just Revised their 1st rise in extent by another 7 or 8 mill sq k’s..the Arctic just saw a 10,000 sq K rebound!! I can’t wait to see if the refreeze can pass up 09 down the road which would make up for any extent loss from last year although we still have a hundred million sq k’s to go to get to 09’s min…Sorry for the interuption…..ok back to the good stuff!

Virveli says:
August 30, 2010 at 11:02 am
(Scott:) “so there’s still a very slight possibility of it staying above 2009 ”
“This chance would seem to me to be in the same league as the Petermann ice Island a.k.a “Deniersberg” reattaching itself to the glacier where it calved from. (Which S.G. told us would “probably” happen as well.)”
___________
Or for the temperatures to go down in the 1930’s in the 2000’s
Or for the temperatures to go down in the 1890’s in the 2000’s
and so on…

Steven Mosher said:
August 30, 2010 at 9:10 am
Nightvid Cole says:
August 30, 2010 at 5:33 am (Edit)
Seriously, the type of global warming denial that many of you (I will not give specific names) have resorted to is really starting to just sound really stupid.”
Yes. More important is this. The important skeptical arguments ( about sensitivity) get drown out by the increasing cacophany of spurious chattering. All the bandwidth is sucked up by shallowest most misleading voices.
________________________________________
Totally agree, wheat and chaff and all that. On the pro AGW side the media has too much chaff and not enough wheat, and for the con AGW the great global layman does similar. It’s all black or white and the arguments that swing it one way or another are too clever for the majority to add any input on.
Being neither too far pro or con, but quite pro scientists in general, including Juliette and Walt and Mark, I have a nice backstop who will always pipe up if I am writing bollocks… not sure who fills that gap in the other camp??
You shouldn’t be posting non polar stuff like that here though… bad boy! 🙂
Andy

bubbagyro says:
August 29, 2010 at 5:12 pm
u.k.(us) says:
August 29, 2010 at 4:59 pm
The cruise ship operators are insisting that Canada supply a permanently stationed helicopter for rescue purposes. Supplied by Canada, of course! A sense of entitlement becomes swagger…then hubris!
____________________________________
Gee, I think they should reap the Darwin Award instead. The Gene Pool could use a bit of cleaning.
Our failure to allow nature to clean the Gene Pool has resulted in idiots being elected to high public office, yes it is definitely time to let nature clean the Gene Pool.

Juliette Strive is wishing to be reaffirmed about mans influence . There are apparently no real machos in this blog . Anybody willing to accept the glove ?
Give her a real handshake and she may be more than willing to accept any offer she cannot refuse .

Over 100 comments & no R Gately (Or was it Gates?)

Martin Brumby says: August 30, 2010 at 1:48 am
These Arctic sea ice posts are always interesting but I still can’t see quite what all the fuss is about.
Hi Martin. Some 60+ studies show doubling CO2 will raise global temps. The results cluster around +3C (+/-1C). These arise from basic research, not GCMs. Please read Mark Lynas’ excellent book “Six Degrees”. It details what might be anticipated from a +1C, +2C etc rises. Before WUWT regulars jump down my throat it is made clear in the book and by interviews with the author that the +5C, +6C chapters in particular are speculative and supported by sparse data sets at best. The many potential effects of +3C are sobering enough – no need to read further. One simple example; for England, I anticipate “1 in 100 year” flood events to become far more frequent.
Arctic ice is fighting a losing battle against rising ocean heat content – a consequence of GW. Paradoxically, in its current phase, the final extent is now more sensitive to weather events than before, but the variation is about a much lower mean.

“Hi Martin. Some 60+ studies show doubling CO2 will raise global temps. The results cluster around +3C (+/-1C).”
I thought the physical properties of CO2 as a GHG were a 1C for a doubling of pre-industrial levels (280 x 2=560ppm) and that to get to 3C for that same doubling all the feedbacks were of the warming category. They get the 3C+ from the MODELS that they run, because they program the feedbacks to be of the warm variety.

Ammonite says: “The many potential effects of +3C are sobering enough – no need to read further. One simple example; for England, I anticipate “1 in 100 year” flood events to become far more frequent.”
Forgive me, but taking all of this as stipulated, I still think you are going to have a hard time “sobering” the people of England with tales of their climate becoming almost, but not quite, bearable to a tropical species.
Rather than tales of floods several times a century I think it best that you revert to the former tactic; tales of ubiquitous glacier.

Updated 15-day chart:
http://img444.imageshack.us/img444/9426/15day20100829.png
Updated 7-day chart. 2009 added for comparison:
http://img839.imageshack.us/img839/1576/7day20100829.png
I think we’re now past the point of undershoot and a latent dip as in 2005/6, despite JAXA having just confirmed an unnerving early gain. It’s taken a bit of a knock in the past week but the 7-day average still looks on track to cross stasis on 11th, two days ahead of 2009. I’ve revised my estimate down slightly from to 5.19 x 10^6 +/- 0.10 to 5.15 x 10^6 +/- 0.10. I expect the variance to reduce significantly now as we close in. If it doesn’t +/- 0.10 may not be wide enough.
5249844 was the lowest 15% extent posted for Jaxa in 2009, on Sept 13th. 5352500 has just been posted for Aug 29th 2010 (provisional was 5345156). Here is what would happen if melt continued to decline in a straight line at the same rate as it did in 2009 (about 19,000/day), which it won’t of course.

Date    2009     2010
------  -------  -------
Aug-29  5533906  5352500
Aug-30  5487656  5333477
Aug-31  5447188  5314453
Sep-01  5423750  5295430
Sep-02  5398281  5276406
Sep-03  5379844  5257383
Sep-04  5387969  5238359
Sep-05  5363438  5219336
Sep-06  5345156  5200312
Sep-07  5328906  5181289
Sep-08  5330469  5162266
Sep-09  5315938  5143242
Sep-10  5295313  5124219
Sep-11  5278594  5105195
Sep-12  5259375  5086172
Sep-13  5249844  5067148

I’m expecting it to stick fairly closely to the 7-day mean but head north slightly early due to what by most accounts seem to be colder conditions. As Steve says, at the end of the day it’s a crap shoot – even at this eleventh hour.
Thanks Steve for pricking my interest enough to look at the numbers for myself. It’s convinced me the cycle is strongly hysteretic and therefore that year to year trends are pretty much meaningless and drawing a linear trend across even 30 years of data is for the most part, complete nonsense. Joe Bastardi has the right idea with his “two steps forward one step back” statement. The Arctic is like a 100watt Marshal stack fed with weather signals through a fuzz-box with sustain set to 10. A pair of ear muffs might be a good idea in the next few years (but not for the noise).

The behaviour of the ice in September will not be a statistics problem. It will be determined by the specifics of the weather.

stevengoddard says:
August 30, 2010 at 5:34 pm

The behaviour of the ice in September will not be a statistics problem. It will be determined by the specifics of the weather.

Yep, and ultimately affect what happens next March.

stevengoddard says:
August 30, 2010 at 9:04 am
baffled
What do you think water temperatures are under the ice in the central Arctic?
—
Warm enough for it not to be ice.

Dear Steve/Anthony/others,
I have not really followed the sea ice updates but I am confused about how it is that skeptics print these updates that appear to show hardly any change in sea ice extents whereas others (e.g. http://www.climatecodered.net/, then click on ‘Arctic challenge’) show huge, alarming changes in sea ice extent.
Does anyone know of a good introduction to help a beginner on this subject understand what is going on?
Best,
Alex

Jeff P says:
August 30, 2010 at 6:45 am
This puts 2010 in the top five lowest sea ice extents in the JAXA record and it’s still August.
I’ll assume your post wasn’t humor. So what was the point? The JAXA record is very short.
What is your view of how bad PIOMAS predictions are? So far Steven Goddard isn’t that far off. PIOMAS is awful. Do you agree? Will you make a long comment about how awful PIOMAS is, even longer than the one you made about Steven Goddard? You wouldn’t be biased and not, would you?

bob
Ice volume has increased year over year since 2008, and there will be a significant increase in the amount of multi-year ice in 2011. Those are the primary considerations in a recovery. Ask NSIDC if you don’t believe me.

stevengoddard says:
August 30, 2010 at 5:34 pm
The behaviour of the ice in September will not be a statistics problem. It will be determined by the specifics of the weather.
That is true.
But we keep getting told by some that the statistics derived from data gathered from 1979 to 2007 determines what we will see happen in the ice. And not only for this year but anytime from 2015 to 2040 all Arctic Ice will be gone in the summertime. And we are told it is not a matter now of ‘if’ but ‘when’.
We don’t know for sure what weather will be 5 days from now, but we are told with 100% certainty the Arctic is soon going to have ice free summers….oh, wait, wait, unless we change our ways. They know that with 100% certainty too.
Nice to know man suddenly has evolved the ability to control weather.

Green Sand says: August 30, 2010 at 2:38 pm
“Doubling from what level to what level?”
For the range of CO2 concentrations in our present day atmosphere the starting level is not important.
kfg says: August 30, 2010 at 2:58 pm
“you are going to have a hard time “sobering” the people of England with tales of their climate becoming almost, but not quite, bearable to a tropical species.”
🙂 Yep, that’s a lost cause!

bob
My June forecast is almost exactly on target.
[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0-40bmi9fGc]

stevengoddard says:
August 30, 2010 at 8:27 pm

Scott,
When making your forecasts, you should probably consider the Arctic weather.
http://wxmaps.org/pix/temp2.html

Hi Steve, thanks for the advice. I know the weather is the key factor here these last two weeks, but I don’t have the expertise to use it in my calculations. Also, I consider the numbers I’m posting to just be updates on what the statistics say to those people here reading that don’t have the time/experience to workup the JAXA numbers themselves. I don’t consider them forecasts.
Maybe next year I’ll try putting together a multiparameter equation to do more than these very basic statistics.
-Scott

What about the shortest melt season? Is that still in play?
Break out the popcorn?
JAXA
http://img202.imageshack.us/img202/552/zamsreseaiceextentl830c.jpg
DMi
http://img714.imageshack.us/img714/3859/zicecover2010810crop.jpg
I’m not saying this turn up means the melt season is over. But it reminds of global warming predictions of longer melts seasons in the Arctic.

Alex Harvey:
Graphs are pretty but only TOPAZ shows the two Main Satellites in comparison (AMSR-E & SSMI)
(ignore the top row & Topaz itself: – – it is a forecast) http://arctic-roos.org/forecasting-services/topaz/topaz-model-forecast
DATA is present at only a few Places (3).
>Extent is where Ice drops below 15% coverage, i.e, 85% open water (except DMI, which uses 30%), Always MORE than Area.
>>Area seems like it would be better — but is MUCH less predictable. And jumps UP a lot.
>>>VOLUME is low lately, so WUWT pretends it is fake — in fact ICESAT showed it will read MORE Ice than is really there, in a big melt: http://psc.apl.washington.edu/ArcticSeaiceVolume/IceVolume.php
DATA
Area: Nansen=Norsex http://www.nersc.no/main/index2.php (Bottom of page: but the “2008” and “2009”: should be 2010 & 2007)
Area: (JAXA, is AMSR-E) http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/timeseries.anom.1979-2008
Extent (JAXA, is Amsr-E) http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/seaice/extent/plot.csv
… note that NSIDC uses a less accurate Algorithm in order to remain compatible with OLD Data – – but Norsex Charts may have updated their Old numbers as their 2007 minimum is 10% HIGHER than the Nansen number, yet IDENTICAL for 2010.
This implies ALL other graphs UNDERSTATE past years’s ice by about 10%.
JAXA Area, thus implies that 2007 will break 2007’s record TOMORROW, assuming another 143 K melt (it has average 70K over the last 6 days & at this rate WILL pass in under a week – – which tends to confirm the PIOMAS numbers.
… Except … As all these satellites are recievers of emitted radiation, they can & do confuse ICE and Water (especially the hotter water). AND NSIDC says the AMSR-E instruments are on the fritz & recording TOO MUCH ICE – – which is likely why the Norsex Charts show 2010 SOOOOOO close to the 2007 & 2008 Minima.
But am I certain about that ? No.
So look at Nansen’s and JAXA’a area the last few days:
08/24/2010 4585606.7 km2. + _9 K
08/25/2010 4441278.1 km2. -144 K
08/26/2010 4429732.4 km2. – 11.5 k
08/27/2010 4352233.7 km2 – 77.501 K
08/28/2010 4359146.5 km2. + _6,913
08/29/2010 4368270.3 km2. + _ 9,124
Nansen Minima 3.29 = 2007 (But NORSEX has 3.6 = 2007)
JAXA MINIMA = 2.919 = 2007 3.426 = 2009 3.004 = 2008
2010.6438 3.6573241 -112,204.3
2010.6466 3.6183364 – 38,987.7
2010.6493 3.6434665 + 25,1301
Aug.26th 3.5644226 – 79,043.9 (0.6521 of 365 days = 238th day)
2010.6548 3.4909644 – 73,458.2
2010.6576 3.3474884 -143,476
… Do you get the Picture? _ _ THEY DISAGREE – – a LOT.
Further: this year is WEIRD. The Ice volume was so low that 30-to-50 foot thick ice that has stuck to Greenland & nearby Islands for Decades, up & got sucked into the void. This I refer to as Ice CUBES (though actually the corners melt off)..
As the La Nina makes it COLD, every Night we get some Freezing, especially near these big blocks. Even though that is 1/2 inch thick ice that vanishes come daylight, the Numbers are 2-to-5 day averages & this affects them a LOT (Note: except near the Pole, which has no Night, now: 6 months Day & 6 months NIGHT. Sunset is 23 days off, I think)
Personally I take all save Piomas with a grain of salt – – at least THIS year, with the unusual reflections confusing the satellites SOOO much – – as ONLY Piomas “assimilates” (thus the “as” in its name) data from ship & shore people, who actually MEASURE the ice. Even then, the Center area around the Pole, is just a guess (that is where the 2007 Piomas error occurred, and, we are again seeing a LOT of low-concentration ice near the Pole).
Overall, however, I think the BIG CHUNCKS will melt so much slower than thinner pieces that the La Nina we have — and the next one — the 60-year Cycle is in its Cold phase since 2007, which implies 2 – – will add a LOT of Ice before the next El Nino threatens to wipe it out again (a 1960s book called the Physics of Ice insisted Ice’s time-to-melt varied as the SQUARE of thickness).
Predicting the Future: try EMMCF – – pick NHemi http://www.wetterzentrale.de/topkarten/fsecmeur.html
And Pips for Ice Drift/Displacement : http://www7320.nrlssc.navy.mil/pips2/idis.html … “archive” means OLDER charts.
By the Way: Congrats to Steve – – he submitted a Sea Ice Outlook. 5.1 million Square km — unless he persuades Helen to let him change it in the next 48 hours or so. But 5.1 looks possible.
It takes Guts to hang it all out there in public.

Is there a Global Multidecadel Oscillation? Or the same graph with a different name?

If the AGW climate models were as accurate as your ice forecast, there would be no debate on AGW. I would say at this point, the forecast is pretty accurate – just not exact. Which is how forecasts work.

Jeff P
Using your methodology, a forecast of zero would be ideal – because it would never be “busted.”
Doesn’t work that way in target shooting. Winner is closest to the bullseye. You are being disingenuous.

Rod Everson,
“Most years (in the relatively short record) the first extent increase occurred between about Sep 1st and Sep 4th, with only one I believe earlier than Aug 29th. ”
Your belief is based on insufficiently thorough research. August 24th showed an increase in extent in the JAXA record in both 2002 and 2006.

stevengoddard says:
August 31, 2010 at 10:16 am
Jeff P
Using your methodology, a forecast of zero would be ideal – because it would never be “busted.”
Doesn’t work that way in target shooting. Winner is closest to the bullseye. You are being disingenuous.
———————————–
Steve,
If you want to predict an ice free arctic no one is stopping you.
You’ve certainly changed your tune from earlier in the year when you were saying that your prediction of 5.5 million K^2 was too conservative and the minimum would be much higher.
No, this isn’t anything like target shooting. You proposed a theory that arctic sea ice is recovering and the test of that theory would be a minimum extent above 5.5 million K^2 in 2010. The extent has dropped below that casting serious doubt on the validity of your theory.
Lastly, it would be nice if we could have this conversation without name calling or questioning my sincerity. Calling me disingenuous is just hurling insults and adds nothing of substance.
P.S. if you still regard your theory of sea ice recovery in play what are the minimums you predict for 2011 – 2015? Based on your theory they should be increasing year after year.

Djon says:
August 31, 2010 at 11:52 am
“Your belief is based on insufficiently thorough research. August 24th showed an increase in extent in the JAXA record in both 2002 and 2006.”
You’re correct, and you caught the “I believe” in my statement. 2002 was missing some records right around the beginning of September and so I had ignored it the first time I checked the data. I re-checked it in the middle of writing that post but then overlooked correcting what I’d written. Sorry about that and thanks for clearing it up for everyone.
Rod

Jon P,
Are you saying that you don’t want government enforced drastic measures to control CO2 because you don’t believe in CAGW or that you wouldn’t want government enforced drastic measures to control CO2 even if you did believe in CAGW? Can we agree that the latter position would be foolish, unless you had some plausible non-government solution to the problem? Personally, I don’t think people voluntarily buying more fuel efficient cars (and, no doubt, taking other efficiency measures they consider cost effective) is going to be enough of a response to the threat.
Also, do you disbelieve in the efficacy of government solutions to all problems too large or complex to be addressed by individual action or is climate change somehow a special case? Government action has, in fact, solved some pretty big problems over the course of time, though climate change is admittedly a bigger one than any in the past I can easily bring to mind given the long time frame before catastrophic impacts are likely, the gradual nature of the changes involved, the need for international cooperation to address it, etc.
And no, I don’t think a minimum this year below 5 million square kilometers is going to end all debate and lead to immediate strong action. However, I’m not aware of any rule saying public policy debates have to be settled in one fell swoop. In my view, every little bit of evidence helps and arctic ice, as one of the more closely watched indicators of a warming world, is one of the more important pieces of the evidentiary case for climate change being a problem that needs to be addressed.

Jon P,
“You know that when someone says “I believe” it usually means that they did not research it and are unsure about their statement.”
This from the person who only a few hours ago wrote “I really do not believe in CAGW.”. Are we to understand that use of the phrase “I really do not believe” is usually indicative of thorough research? For future reference, is it the “do not” that does it or the “really” or are both necessary to convey this subtle nuance?

In case anyone else interpreted my response to Rod Everson as an attack, I’d like to say it wasn’t intended as such, just as a reminder to all that care should be taken when making factual assertions in any forum. I’m glad Rod, at least, seems to have taken it as such.

Djon says:
August 31, 2010 at 12:43 pm
What does the “C” stand for in CAGW? You sure type a lot of words and say very little.
Your prior post, the former is my answer. People are volunterring to buy more fuel efficient cars? lol They will buy them when they make economic sense. Are you insinuating that government should transition “volunteering” to “mandating”?
So just so we are clear, loss of ice in Artic bad caused by CAGW, but no loss of ice in Antartic is OK, because it is different. High temps in Moscow = CAGW. Low temps in South America, southern California, etc = weather. Government is the model of efficiency where capitalism is bad and evil and corrupt. Nothing anyone says, writes, displays will delude the confidence that you have in the “threat” that we “face”.
Yep planet has warmed, but it is not catastrophic and the only evidence that you have that it will be is models. So you must “believe” it, because you certainly cannot “prove” it.

Jeff P says:
August 31, 2010 at 1:07 pm
“You’ve certainly changed your tune from earlier in the year when you were saying that your prediction of 5.5 million K^2 was too conservative and the minimum would be much higher.”
Steven discussed about conditions that could affect his prediction one way or another, all summer. He never changed his 5.5 number. The above is a lie. I said it without anger or any other emotion you may wish to project. Would you have “felt” better if I said it was not truthful? or not accurate?

Djon says:
August 31, 2010 at 10:08 am
Jon P,
You do realise that “a bit of luck” isn’t necessarily the same thing as “a bit of good luck”, don’t you?
———–
I’ve been wondering what other interpretations there might be of ” a bit of luck” and the only one I’ve come up with is “a lot of luck”, but still where the luck is good and not bad.
I don’t suppose you’d indulge me with an example of a context in which it might refer to bad luck, or even a neutral luck that is neither good nor bad.
Pretty silly, I’ll grant you, but the underlying point that you go on to allude to is the very human desire to be vindicated in one’s opinions.
I would ascribe it a much greater significance than you appear to do, and that would be at the expense of the eminently sane rationale such as that which you credit Mr. Cherrytree with.
Of course, we have very grown-up terms acknowledging the phenomenon, like confirmation bias, but none of it goes into a numerical model.

Djon says:
August 31, 2010 at 2:48 pm
How is that team defense working out for you?

The next three days will see a little decline, then back to flat.

Jon P says:
August 31, 2010 at 1:46 pm
Jeff P says:
August 31, 2010 at 1:07 pm
“You’ve certainly changed your tune from earlier in the year when you were saying that your prediction of 5.5 million K^2 was too conservative and the minimum would be much higher.”
Steven discussed about conditions that could affect his prediction one way or another, all summer. He never changed his 5.5 number. The above is a lie. I said it without anger or any other emotion you may wish to project. Would you have “felt” better if I said it was not truthful? or not accurate?
——————-
Jon P,
Read what I said again.
Nowhere in my quote do I say that Steve changed his 5.5 number.
If that is the basis of you calling me a liar you have no case and owe me an apology.
I stand by what I wrote as true.

stevengoddard says:
August 31, 2010 at 1:28 pm
Jeff P,
You proposed a theory that arctic sea ice is recovering and the test of that theory would be a minimum extent above 5.5 million K^2 in 2010.
I never said anything of the sort. I made an estimate of 5.5, the rest is a straw man fabricated up by you.
—————
Steve,
Are you denying that you said that arctic sea ice is in recovery or has recovered?

stevengoddard says:
August 31, 2010 at 3:20 pm
The next three days will see a little decline, then back to flat.
We need to loose 20 to 30K, does that much look likely?

AJB,
I’m curious – what’s the significance of 20 to 30K more extent loss?

Phil.
What part of this statement (which you quoted) is beyond your comprehension?

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

I have been talking about the wind all summer. Do you have a problem with mortals thinking about and discussing various outcomes, or do you prefer deities like Hansen?

Steven,
You posted
“Given the triple point of water at 0C,”
Do you know what the triple point of water is?
It is not 0C, but you are fairly close, but what pressure?

bob,
Before you get the chance to embarrass yourself again, I’ll save you the trouble.
Ice floats on the surface of the ocean.

I think you should cut Steve some slack here.
The minimun this year is barely going to be lower than 2009 so he’s not far off.
The confounding factor was the recent El Nino. Normally such an El Nino would reduce the subsequent ice minimum more than this one has done so I’m satisfied that the recovery trend remains in place and should accelerate next year after the coming La Nina.

Gneiss says:
August 31, 2010 at 4:53 pm
You forgot Steven’s update on June 3rd.
“Anyone betting on the minimum extent needs to recognize that summer weather can dramatically effect the behaviour of the ice. The fact that the ice is thicker now is no guarantee that it won’t shrink substantially if the summer turns out to be very warm, windy or sunny. Joe Bastardi believes that it will be a warm summer in the Arctic. I’m not a weather forecaster and won’t make any weather predictions.”
So let me ask you a question using your interpretation of what a prediction is. Who is going to be closer to their “prediction” Steven Goddard at 5.5+or Mark Serreze with his less than 2007 minimum?

Jon P writes,
“So let me ask you a question using your interpretation of what a prediction is. Who is going to be closer to their “prediction” Steven Goddard at 5.5+or Mark Serreze with his less than 2007 minimum?”
Steve’s “You bet ya” sounded like a prediction (of a record high minimum) to me. What did Mark say, that sounded like a prediction (of a record low minimum) to you?
What this year’s final minimum will be I have my guess (like everyone else), but weather makes the final cut. Climate change is the trend, though, and that’s spiraling downward whether 2010 is the lowest or just the third-lowest yet measured.
And Serreze has my vote any day on who understands more about Arctic ice. Think there’s one Arctic scientist on the planet who’d say Goddard?

Gneiss,
“And Serreze has my vote any day on who understands more about Arctic ice. Think there’s one Arctic scientist on the planet who’d say Goddard?”
Then why waste your time here your highness? Other than to appeal to authority and ignore quotes that counter your interpretation of people’s words. Steven made the you betcha quote on June 2. I provided his update on June 3.
Serreze ““Could we break another record this year? I think it’s quite possible,” said Mark Serreze of the National Snow and Ice Data Center in Boulder, Colo.
“We are going to lose the summer sea-ice cover. We can’t go back.”
“The issue is that, for the first time that I am aware of, the North Pole is covered with extensive first-year ice – ice that formed last autumn and winter. I’d say it’s even-odds whether the North Pole melts out,” said Dr Serreze. (on 2008)
“Indeed, for the Arctic as a whole, the melt season started with even more thin ice than in 2007, hence concerns that we may even beat last year’s sea-ice minimum. We’ll see what happens, a great deal depends on the weather patterns in July and August,” he said. ”
Oh I see Serreze can mention that sea ice cover can vary depending on weather, but Steven Goddard cannot, got it.
I’ll say one thing, you sure make me laugh, your highness.

Djon says:
August 31, 2010 at 6:50 pm
Wow talk about straying from the path of comprehension! When I said perhaps you should let Gunther respond, I meant you should let Gunther speak for himself.
Thanks for the uneeded dictionary lesson as you need to look more closely how the two words are related.
Since the objective of your posts is soley to turn and twist what people write, please find for me where I said “Djon said this”.
I’ll be waiting.
Just because you said I put words in your mouth does not make it so.

Gneiss says:
August 31, 2010 at 7:18 pm
When was I asked to name an Artic scientist? Ah just more false information from you.
You are incomplete on your analysis (surprise surprise).
Will it snow on Christmas this year? You bet ya. should be
Can we expecy it to snow this year with increased cloud cover on Christmas this year? You bet ya.
AND
Of course depending on the extent of the weather on Christmas day it might or might not snow. I am not going to try to predict the weather on that day.
You dishonesty grows with every post, I’m laughing at you, because I am dismissing you. You have no integrity.
Next Day

Jon P writes,
“When was I asked to name an Artic scientist? Ah just more false information from you.”
Well, in the post you were attacking, I had asked you,
“Think there’s one Arctic scientist on the planet who’d say Goddard?”
Jon P goes on,
“You dishonesty grows with every post, I’m laughing at you, because I am dismissing you. You have no integrity.”
For a laughing man you write bitterly.

Gneiss says:
August 31, 2010 at 8:22 pm
Well, in the post you were attacking, I had asked you,
“Think there’s one Arctic scientist on the planet who’d say Goddard?”
That question is to be answered with a yes or no. My answer would be no.
So once again, when was I asked to name an Artic Scientist?
“For a laughing man you write bitterly.” Ah, I have now met another expert at knowing emotional states from text! Let me be clear and honest (you’ll have to look up the”H” word) with you, I am laughing, I enjoy watching people make a fool of themself. For example, some people think a question requiring a yes or no for an answer, state that it actually was a request for a name! lol

I really do not understand how both “sides” have to argue the Ice goes CONTINUOUSLY Up – – or CONTINUALLY Down.
El Nino = Less Ice 2007
La Nina = More 2008
La Nina = More 2009
El Nino = Less 2010
La Nina = More (next year)
… the HEART of the 60-year Cycle is that is AVERAGES going Up 30, and down 30 (post 2007, which was the “change” year: long Predicted).
But each year CAN be Hot or Warm… Weather … VARIES.
There are just MORE La Nina than El Nino, in the COOL HALF of the cycle.
The Last Minima & Maxima (1954 & 1983 based on PIOMAS & Sub data respectively) trailed the change because once there is a lot of Ice, it tends to stay cold, & visa versa – – so even though Outnumbered since 2007, a single Warm El Nino can reverse several Las Ninas, as Ice that is THIN, melts off & exposes Dark Seawater, which Absorbs Sunlight MUCH better than Ice (94% vs 30-50% or 10% new Snow – – http://nsidc.org/seaice/processes/albedo.html ) — which then ADDS extra sunlight to the Melt.
THUS: pure chance …
… gives us a BIG Melt near Low Ice. Sometimes.
Unlike the “Progressive” (AGW) melters, I thought it might ALL melt THIS year, as the El Nino was strong.
… And I regard each year as a Coin-flip …
… until it BUILDS UP. At that point – – we are safe for 50 years.
Once it is thick enough to survive ONE freak year, the greater number of Cool La Nina Years will thicken the Ice for Decades & even after the Cycle flips, it will take decades to wear it down.
In short : EVERY 60 YEARS WE ARE VULNERABLE TO FREAK WEATHER.
PS: ALSO, I do think MAN is influencing the Climate – – the AGW lobby TRIES to make things worse – – the Warmer it gets, the MORE MONEY THEY GET – – by Decreasing Sulfur “the Great Global Cooler”, while increasing SOOT, and Natural Gas/Methane, they can steal more Tax Money. And, if Lovelock, Hansen, Lawson, etc. are correct, ALSO by writing the very Laws that are SUPPOSED to decrease CO2 – – in such a way as Even CO2 gets Increased.
All these Years Industry was RANDOMLY adding chemicals, some Coolers, some Warmers – – to little net effect.. But NOW, we are killing the Coolers & increasing the Warmers. You can imagine what all the BLACK SOOT is doing to how much SUN the formerly white, reflective, ice, absorbs.

Jon P said
August 31, 2010 at 1:46 pm
Jeff P says:
August 31, 2010 at 1:07 pm
“You’ve certainly changed your tune from earlier in the year when you were saying that your prediction of 5.5 million K^2 was too conservative and the minimum would be much higher.”
Steven discussed about conditions that could affect his prediction one way or another, all summer. He never changed his 5.5 number
______________________________________________________________
He has actually, he is now predicting 5.1.
Andy