By Steve Goddard
Arctic Ice (red line above) has dropped just below my June forecast (dashed line.) Over the last two weeks, strong southerly winds reminiscent of 2007 have compacted and melted significant amounts of ice. The modified NSIDC image below shows ice loss over the last week, in red.
The break in the weather can be easily seen in the DMI temperature graph, as a sharp upwards spike two weeks ago.
The NCEP forecast calls for colder and calmer weather during the next two weeks, so ice loss should drop off quickly.
The DMI 30% concentration graph has already flattened, and is running even with 2009.
The modified NSIDC image below shows ice gain over 2007 in green, and loss in red.
PIOMAS continues to overestimate (red) ice loss by a substantial margin. Green shows areas where they underestimated ice loss.
It continues to look like my June forecast will be close to correct, though as we have seen – this contest is a crap shoot. It all depends on the wind.
Julienne Strove from NSIDC asked last week what it would take to be convinced of man’s influence. I will respond with a question of my own. What does it take to prove that changes in the wind are driven by changes in CO2?
Extra bonus : Does anyone see a familiar pattern (below) in Greenland temperatures? What year did satellites monitoring the Arctic come on line?
Enquiring minds want to know.
Cherry picking greenland’s temperatures from one station?
PIO – in the sky – MAS?
Arigato Gozai-mass!
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
Have to admit I was for this year wrong as I though that this year would keep track with 2005. However can still play with 2011 forecast hahaha bet it will be the death knell of AGW this time I hope LOL
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
This has nothing to do with global warming and everything to do with wind and currents.
For a single year’s ice coverage? Pretty much. Helping people understand the difference between short-term fluctuations and long-term trends is a long-term trial with short-term concentration spans.
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
Konrad says:
August 29, 2010 at 4:00 pm RE: the cruise ship Clipper Adventurer
Some might infer from your comment that the cruise ship was stranded and would soon be held fast by ice. (jeef says: August 29, 2010 at 4:21 pm)
That does not seem to be the case. It hit a rock.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/cruise-ship-exploring-northwest-passage-runs-aground/article1689257/
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.
“Julienne Strove from NSIDC asked last week what it would take to be convinced of man’s influence.”
As with other earth-science questions of great controversy, such as,
a) plate tectonics;
b) channeled scablands of Eastern Washington;
c) insert your own favorite;
. . . it will take a rational mechanism with enough energy to cause the changes seen.
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”
1. A continuation of warming for the next 3-4 decades where the PDO/AMO cycle phases predict cooling (together with a solar minimum).
2. A correlation between deep time palaeoclimate global temperature and CO2. This is totally absent over the last half billion years – while CO2 has erratically declined due to plants, temperature has shown a stable attractor of 22C, with short dips to 12C at 150 MYr intervals (we are in one now allowing a cherry-picked illusion of temperature decline).
3. In more recent ice core reconstructions (e.g. Vostok) evidence that CO2 changes precede temperature changes implying that CO2 drives temperature (the reverse of this is the reality).
4. A physical demonstration that CO2 overwhelms all other atmospheric forcers of heat budget such as water vapour and clouds.
5. Failing 1-4, a ticket to a parallel universe in which the initial shuffle and deal of the physical constant pack of cards at the big bang was such that the properties of CO2 and H2O were exchanged.
“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.
“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….
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”
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.
Current extent is predicting a bit over 5.0e6 km^2 again. I’ll have to take a look to see how the other statistics play out now that we (preliminarily) have a day of gain.
-Scott
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.
“Julienne Strove from NSIDC asked last week what it would take to be convinced of man’s influence. I will respond with a question of my own. What does it take to prove that changes in the wind are driven by changes in CO2?”
—
Answer a question with a (ridiculous) question? It was perfectly answerable, so why the dodging?
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?
baffled,
It is much easier to disprove a theory than it is to prove it.
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?
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.
baffled24 says:
August 29, 2010 at 9:27 pm
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
Man’s influence:
Julienne might want to read police reports of the recent arrest of Paris Hilton in Las Vegas. Apparently there was a very suggestive vapor release from her boyfriend’s Cadillac that she was in, that caught the attention of a motorcycle police officer, that drew him to the SUV for a vehicle stop for weed, that turned into a coke arrest.
In this case the arresting officers were following evidence of something in the wind that was not right, that led to an arrest because something was not right.
You might ask Julienne what evidence, whether in the wind or not, that she is following to lead her to ask the question she did. The people developing the global warming models need to know this information so that might actually have an accurate backcast, not to mention a forecast, of what’ s happening to the weather.
You might also ask her why its so cold in the US in August? And why SH issues of cold are paramount today.
Maybe she should give the horse she is riding a physical.
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.