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.
Jon P writes,
“Then why waste your time here your highness?”
Ok, sarcasm comes easier to Jon P than naming one Arctic scientist.
Serreze did say “Could we break another record this year? I think it’s quite possible.” That is not a prediction. There’s a difference, not terribly subtle.
Will it snow on Christmas this year? You bet ya.
Will it snow on Christmas this year? I think it’s quite possible.
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
Sorry for the typos. I really should sit up when I type if Iam going to select lazy mode and not proof read before clicking “Post Comment”.
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.
stevengoddard,
could you kindly explain how you produced the image: http://climateinsiders.files.wordpress.com/2010/08/paintimage1824.jpg
i did some linear regressions on data available from GISS (is this your source?) http://data.giss.nasa.gov/work/gistemp/STATIONS//tmp.431042500000.1.1/station.txt
but can’t come up with similar results. for example:
start end slope span years d_t over period
1911.0 1940.0 0.0600044493882133 29.0 1.74012903225818
1979.0 2009.0 0.0593732802529347 30.0 1.78119840758804
the last number in the rows reflect total change in temperature over the time period of the linear regression, but (eyeballing) your figure yields 3.7 degrees C and -4 degrees C over the same time period. both of your lines appear to be 2.1x exaggerated over calculated values
code, as is my pleasure, freely available here, open for criticism, updating, and ideally, improvement http://github.com/bbttxu/wuwt-giss
working for xtra credit, bbttxu
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
Global warming has created so many new experts in climate. They know all. And they have come here to WUWT to tell us all about it. We are blessed to have them.
sarc off
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.
Back to ice discussion, the preliminary 08/31 number is up for JAXA. Ice lost a touch above average, ~28000 km^2…2002-2009 average is 22402 km^2.
This number puts this year right above 2005’s value, very likely to break it the next day of loss (or even on 08/31 if the final number differs considerably from the preliminary one). We’re now ~290000 km^2 ahead of 2008 and ~127000 km^2 behind 2009. Probability of ending above 2009 is now under 2.5%.
Current extent is predicting a final extent of 5.05e6 km^2, and my own analysis method is giving 5.07e6 km^2.
-Scott
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
Man, it’s just like unmoderated .alt groups in here. Makes me feel all warm and fuzzy inside.
[snip – Chalk it up to a temporary lack of moderation. Can’t we please, please tone it down a bit for awhile? Out of respect for our gracious host? I’ve had to do more snipping in one day than in the last two months. ~ Evan]
Jon P says:
August 31, 2010 at 5:13 pm
Gee Phil I read your post twice and failed to see where Steven changed his 5.5 prediction.. I know those words of “looks” “looks like” and “so far” have very precise meaning that apply to the end prediction…lol. Jeff P. lied, get over it.
Actually he didn’t, he said:
“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.”
You claimed this was a lie, I showed that it was accurate. Jeff P did not say that “Steven changed his 5.5 prediction”.
Alexander Feht says:
August 30, 2010 at 1:06 am
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.
Checkout the coverage of the US Open in NY, more 90º+ days, we had the first in April, certainly been a hot summer here.
AndyW
Obviously it is now below 5.5.
stevengoddard says:
August 31, 2010 at 4:16 pm
Phil.
What part of this statement (which you quoted) is beyond your comprehension?
[snip – substitute word “Please”] address what I was saying in context rather than extracting a partial quotation.
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
However since you bring it up, the ice is certainly not compressed, if it were the minimum could easily be below 4.5.
[I wish to break up this argument. Please address each other in a civil fashion, at least for a while. I don’t care who started this or what all the other kids did or who got in an unfair number of whacks; I am ending it, forthwith. You-all can continue the discussion, but do so as if you were at the dinnertable with your maiden aunt. ~ Evan]
stevengoddard says:
August 31, 2010 at 10:32 pm
AndyW
Obviously it is now below 5.5.
__________________________________
Oh yes, I am not saying you can’t, it’s standard as the year progresses, just saying JonP’s statement was wrong so he needs to tone it down a bit. As an aside I think your latest is lilely to be closer than NSIDC’s 5.0.
Andy
Charles Wilson says:
August 31, 2010 at 9:36 pm
So are you saying that we really are likely “recovering” (if that word even applies to the cyclic variation you’re proposing) and we can expect to see an increase of the ice take hold over the next 5-10 years? Many sceptics have proposed similar things, though I don’t normally see them supply the numbers like you have.
If what you’re proposing is right, then the ice actually performed very, very well this year. I’ve commented that the El Nino this year meant that beating 2009 was unlikely from the get-go, but from what you’re saying, it could have been much worse.
-Scott
stevengoddard says:
August 30, 2010 at 8:24 pm
bob
My June forecast is almost exactly on target.
In which case why had you already changed it by -0.4 to 5.1?
DMI and Norsex show 2010 even or above 2009.
Phil.
I’m sure you will agree that less than 7% error is quite good on an ice forecast made months in advance.
[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n31CNaSNEuU]
Scott says August 31, 2010 at 10:57 pm
Charles Wilson says August 31, 2010 at 9:36 pm
Scott, have a read of this paper:
http://pantheon.yale.edu/%7Ejw378/articles/E&W_Bif_PNAS.pdf
[I wish to break up this argument. Please address each other in a civil fashion, at least for a while. I don’t care who started this or what all the other kids did or who got in an unfair number of whacks; I am ending it, forthwith. You-all can continue the discussion, but do so as if you were at the dinnertable with your maiden aunt. ~ Evan]
Kindly explain what was uncivil about this post, I responded in a polite manner to a taunting post.
[snip – substitute word “Please”]
It’s a bit late in the game to outlaw the word ‘cherry picking’ which has even been used in the title of posts on here (just a few days ago). But since you wish me to substitute a word try the following: ‘I was selectively quoted out of context in order to change the meaning of my statement’
My final word.
All my statements were accurate and I stand behind them. If people have difficulty understanding simple truths, that is there problem.
Phil,
Is 2010 going to be the hottest year on record?
To Charles Wilson:
Mr. Wilson. I’ve actually started trying to read your lengthy posts and am finding them interesting. However, I have a request. I know that you are probably trying to show emphasis by using capital letters on words within sentences, sometimes just the first letter and sometimes the entire word. However, whether you realize it or not that can make it extremely difficult to follow your argument at times due to all the unconventional capitalization that is very distracting.
Would you please consider reverting to normal punctuation/capitalization usage and possibly adopt html tags for bold and italics when you want to show emphasis?
Thanks for considering this. Maybe it’s just me, but I find your posts very difficult to read fluently even though I’ve been interested in what you’re saying.
Rod