With Sea Ice News # 20 closed here is a place for ongoing discussing the 2010 season.
That’s it. I may add a picture later.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
With Sea Ice News # 20 closed here is a place for ongoing discussing the 2010 season.
That’s it. I may add a picture later.
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Reply: Steven is not banned. He is just not going to be a contributing author. I may have to back read this thread to see if I’ve missed something. ~ ctm
With the popularity of Steven Goddard’s posts it’s odd that he won’t be continuing with posts. His posts have generated 1000’s of comments. His posts consistently have more comments in each than anyone else posts. I can see that a couple of commenters don’t like his posts. But those commenters don’t run WUWT, do they? It seems that a couple of people have something personal against him.
stevengoddard says:
September 3, 2010 at 6:30 am
Mine is looking almost perfect.
—–
You’re desperation is palpable.
DMi looks to stay above 2010.
DMi from today, 9/3/10:
http://img827.imageshack.us/img827/81/9310icecover2010crop.jpg
It seems that if the rotted/alarming thinning hypothesis was right this couldn’t happening. I am wondering if there has been serious challenges to that hypothesis or if in general it has just been given a pass because it’s part of global warming exaggerations?
Jeff P says:
September 3, 2010 at 5:06 am
This puts 2010 in the top four lowest sea ice extents in the JAXA record and there is still time on the clock.
Or in the top 5 highest. It depends on how you want to look at it.
But 9 years of data is too short. Nothing important could be determined about Arctic ice with a short data set like that. If there was a data set 1000 years long then we could see what is really going on with Arctic ice and we could draw conclusions about 2010 that would carry weight.. But we only have 9 years in JAXA. Something that we can see though is that Arctic ice is not heading in the direction manmade global warming says it should be. It’s growing since 2007. Antarctic ice is also not doing what global warming ‘science’ says it should. The manmade global warming hypothesis continues to not have supporting evidence.
Jeff P says:
September 3, 2010 at 7:03 am
stevengoddard says:
September 3, 2010 at 6:30 am
Mine is looking almost perfect.
—–
You’re desperation is palpable.
Look at the graph. It is almost fair smack on. With how highly variable Arctic Ice is his prediction is pretty good. Predicting what Arctic Ice totals will be is like trying to make free throws at a hoop that is moving. He almost put this one in.
Jeff P says:
September 3, 2010 at 7:03 am
“You’re desperation is palpable.”
As is your obsession/stalking of Steven.
Amino Acids in Meteorites says:
September 3, 2010 at 7:38 am
But 9 years of data is too short.
———–
Funny, I don’t recall this criticism of the JAXA data when Steve was using it in post after post to support his arctic sea ice recovery theory. Why didn’t you bring it up then?
You wouldn’t be biased, would you?
Confirmed JAXA 15% extent for Sept 2nd is in: 5304219. Updated charts …
15-day: http://img375.imageshack.us/img375/3153/15day20100902.png
7-day: http://img441.imageshack.us/img441/5168/7day20100902.png
Nice … now we need a couple of days at 15-30K melt. DMI above 80N average temp nudged down a little more again today too.
Jeff P says:
“You wouldn’t be biased, would you?”
Everyone is biased to a certain degree. Jeff P happens to be more biased than most. The real problem is the warmists’ heavy-handed use of disreputable Saul Alinsky tactics: isolate the individual, then go after him using a non-stop series of personal ad-hominem attacks. We know that the crowd wouldn’t bother if their target was ineffective.
It’s the same tactic used against Lord Monckton. Being fixated on a personality rather than on the issue is a realclimate-tamino-climateprogress modus operandi. Monkey-piling on those who man up and write articles is nothing to be proud of. I notice that the alarmist contingent hides their charlatan scientists safely behind an impenetrable wall of censorship and official whitewashes, with no contrary voice allowed. Now that is major bias.
Amino Acids in Meteorites says:
September 2, 2010 at 10:14 pm
Yes, that was part of the point of my post…that there is lot of contradicting information from the various databases right now. They all seem to agree that 15% extent for 2010 is at or below 2009’s level (though varying considerably). The also agree that area is below 2009’s level (again, varying considerably). Yet 30% extent from DMI has tracked 2009 well and is slightly above it now, whereas intuitively I’d assume that 30% would behave somewhere between area and 15%.
I guess I should revise my statement to something like “Much of the ice seems to be of intermediate concentration.” Presumably, there has to be a decent amount more ice in the 50% (roughly) range compared to last year for both area and 15% extent to be below 2009 while 30% is above.
That said, I really do think it’s too late in the season for Phil to be right about us losing a lot more extent. And though most people seemed to write it off nearly a week ago, I’m still rooting to out-extend 2009. However, if the recent slowdown in loss doesn’t hold, we could still see extent drop all the way to 5.oe6 km^2 (statistically we should be closer to 5.1e6 km^2, and I have a gut feeling that to 2 sig figs we’ll see 5.2e6 km^2…though that means nothing). A lot of it depends on how accurate the DMI graph is (and of course the weather :-).
The final JAXA number results in less loss than the initial number did, but we still only have 54375 km^2 to go to reach 2009’s minimum. The only year in JAXA that lost less than even 100000 km^2 from here to the minimum was 2004, but apparently several years back in the 80’s had their minimum extent in August, which is interesting.
-Scott
Smokey says:
September 3, 2010 at 9:32 am
Everyone is biased to a certain degree. Jeff P happens to be more biased than most. The real problem is the warmists’ heavy-handed use of disreputable Saul Alinsky tactics: isolate the individual, then go after him using a non-stop series of personal ad-hominem attacks. We know that the crowd wouldn’t bother if their target was ineffective.
It’s the same tactic used against Lord Monckton.
Please, Monckton is the biggest user of ad hominem, remember “overcooked prawn”, “bedwetters”, “half-assed Catholic Bible college”, “this creep of a president” etc.
AndyM. September 2, 2010 at 10:04 pm
Hey, just trying to stay on message (and some!). Saves a dunking on the ducking-stool at the Village pond for herecy 😉
Just between you and me (don’t tell the Master or his toadies) – AMRS-E shows the Arctic sea ice is ravaged (again) this year. And why can’t somebody stop those imbeciles sailing backwards and forwards through tha NW passage – don’t they know it’s blocked with ice??
Scott says:
September 3, 2010 at 9:37 am
That said, I really do think it’s too late in the season for Phil to be right about us losing a lot more extent.
The main reason is that the ice has already gone, all that’s necessary is for the wind to compact the existing ice, comparing with previous years gives a false sense of security since most of those years didn’t have such low ice concentration. Another 60,000 sq km of area went today, four more days like that and it’s below 2008.
Amino Acids in Meteorites says:
September 3, 2010 at 6:56 am
Quantity doesn’t not imply quality, and a lot of my posts were to clarify or correct points Steve raised. I think that overall the world is a better place with Steve having his own blog. I don’t mean that as criticism, Steves’ posts there will certainly be better than those on many blogs. However, given the number of readers here, I think Steve’s posts could be more clear more to the point. His mention of the triple point of pure water in a comment that only needed a reference to the freezing point of sea water started a very unproductive exchange. I’m rather glad I missed it, most of the points I would have made others did for me.
I and others held Steve’s posts to the standards I/they expect at WUWT, but in doing so the ensuing discussion almost always goes off in unfortunate directions. I will comment on Steve’s posts at his blog (note not all of my comments are critiques), and it will be a lot easier for me to hold his posts to his standards.
Steve’s blog gives him a chance to go off in directions that would be OT here, another reason I think things will be better with his own blog.
Phil. says:
September 3, 2010 at 10:26 am Another 60,000 sq km of area went today, four more days like that and it’s below 2008.
Heh, you think so?
http://arctic-roos.org/observations/satellite-data/sea-ice/ice-area-and-extent-in-arctic
Looks like my prediction for a rerun of 2009 is spot on at the moment.
roger says:
September 2, 2010 at 4:47 am
“Hmmmmm. R. Gates seems awfully quiet these days!”
Hubris, nemesis, and hostages to fortune spring immediately to mind. As for catharsis we wonder what form that might take as the AGW brigade nudge gently up against reality.
Who are the denialists now?
________
This last week has been an interesting one in the Arctic and Antarctic as both are reaching critical extrema points. Globally of course, the total sea ice continues to be on the underside of the long term norm, related mostly to the Arctic continuing to be well below the 30 year running average, but of course we’ve seen the Antarctic now dip below the running 30 year average as well. A few things an objective observer would note in looking at this longer term Global sea ice anomaly graph:
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/global.daily.ice.area.withtrend.jpg
First, the graph has spent more time below the average than above over the past 10 years. If you took the definite intergral of the graph you’d see that it was negative over the past ten years. But something else that should become apparent is the high degree of variability that has been introduced in the graph in the past few years (a very high beta). A final thing that should be noted is the significance of this graph in terms of the the total sea ice related albedo of the planet. This graph can be thought of as a direct measure of sea ice albedo, meaning of course that we have seen some very low albedos being reached these past few season, and thus of course, more solar warming of ocean water. This has of course been primarily in the N. Hemipshere, but as I’ve pointed out many times, the S. Hemisphere sea ice has seen negative anomalies over the past few years (just this week in fact) when in fact the N. Hemisphere has not had a positive anomaly since 2004.
To those who would posit any sort of N. Hemisphere sea ice “recovery” I would ask you how there can be any recovery without a positive sea ice anomaly? From a mathematical or scientific point of view you can’t.
In regards specifically to the past few days of N. Hemisphere sea ice activity. We had s stunningly rapid “turn around” in sea ice extent earlier this week. After losing 70,000 sq. km or so for a few days, we saw a rapid halt to this, before a continued downward trend, those much less steep than was happing last weekend for example. This is exactly what wind can do during a period when a great deal of the ice is at such a low concentration. The slow down in the drop in extent was NOT caused by a sudden and rapid freezing of the Arctic, but rather by a shift in the winds that was once more causing divergence in the ice. This divergence, coming so late in the season is an interesting event in itself, that easily sets up the regions of the Beaufort and W. Arctic Basin for more of the “rotten ice” that David Barber reported last year when he visited the area.
Here’s a nice pic from our good and faithful friend the Ice Breaker Healy, on the western side of the Arctic Basin right now. Imagine this ice getting a nice thin layer of ice over the top. Guess what you’ll find here in month or so…rotten ice!
http://mgds.ldeo.columbia.edu/healy/reports/aloftcon/2010/20100903-1701.jpeg
But getting to the heart of the matter, which is what does this lasts weeks period of divergence mean for the final sea ice extent? It depends purely on water temps now, as I’ve been saying for several weeks. If the divergence has kept enough of the ice just a bit further south over warmer waters, then we might get a bit more actual melting. But just as we’ve seen the divergence come upon us quickly this week, the winds could shift and we might get another round of quick compactification. Again, the only thing that makes this kind of rapid change between divergence and compactification possible is the low over all extent in many areas of the N. Hemisphere sea ice. Also, as I point out in my last post, no one should be under the impression that sea ice extent changes right now are measuring primarily melt rates– as they are not. Sea ice extent changes at this point in the melt season (and with the concentration rates where they are) are primarily measuring changes in the wind. Earlier in summer the extent changes were a good measure of melting, but not now. There is a very small amount still going on, but it is occurring only in the areas at the southern most regions of the Arctic.
Continued high SST anomalies across much of the Arctic make me remain confident that we’ve got a few more weeks of decline in ice extent here in September (depending on winds of course), and am still calling for the final summer low to be set between Sept. 20 to Sept. 25.
Today of course we dropped below 2005’s low, and now the next point of interest is 2009’s low. With this year’s melt likely lasting several weeks longer than 2009’s, we should easily fall below that mark…again, though, depending on the timing of the winds and the periods of compactification and divergence.
Smokey says:
September 3, 2010 at 9:32 am
….It’s the same tactic used against Lord Monckton. Being fixated on a personality rather than on the issue is a realclimate-tamino-climateprogress modus operandi. Monkey-piling on those who man up and write articles is nothing to be proud of. I notice that the alarmist contingent hides their charlatan scientists safely behind an impenetrable wall of censorship and official whitewashes, with no contrary voice allowed. Now that is major bias.
________________________________________________
Well said Smokey. You know you are hitting close to the truth when the ad hominem attacks come fast and furious.
Village Idiot says:
September 3, 2010 at 10:04 am
Just between you and me (don’t tell the Master or his toadies) – AMRS-E shows the Arctic sea ice is ravaged (again) this year. And why can’t somebody stop those imbeciles sailing backwards and forwards through tha NW passage – don’t they know it’s blocked with ice??
______________________________
They can’t stop sailing those Ice breakers back and forth because they have to ferry all those CAGW scientists up there so they can exclaim about all that broken up ice. They also have to rescue the ships trying to sail thru the passage or break a path for the ships trying to sail thru.
rbateman said:
September 3, 2010 at 12:55 am
AndyW says:
September 2, 2010 at 10:02 pm
so how does that show up on rbateman’s black and white anomaly graph comparison?
You rang? It would be nice to have been requested in the 1st person.
Nevertheless:
http://www.robertb.darkhorizons.org/seaice.anomaly.Ant_arctic.jpg
The composite of Arctic/Antartic Sea Ice Anomaly graphs courtesy of Cyrosphere Today shows a musical duet.
A product only of numerical coincidence, these 2 anomalies wander in and out of step like 2 clocks on different frequencies.
Both are fully within thier respective ranges of trend. Somewhere around 6 months ago, they touched each other, meeting at a mind-boggling and stupendoulsy amazing Global Average of -0.25 M sq km.
A really big deal, for in early 2009 they were inverted to what they are today, with the Arctic at min and Antarctic at max.
Hey, isn’t this like, you know, predictable stuff?
__________________________
It’s rather impossible to request stuff from you in the first person but I get your point.
You normally mention your graphs when they are in ying /yang so I thought I would point out when they weren’t just to show there really isn’t any correlation between the two.
Andy
Gail Combs says:
September 3, 2010 at 12:32 pm
Well said Smokey. You know you are hitting close to the truth when the ad hominem attacks come fast and furious.
So you think that Prof. John Abraham was hitting close to the truth then?
You normally mention your graphs when they are in ying /yang so I thought I would point out when they weren’t just to show there really isn’t any correlation between the two.
Andy
________
I doubt there is some long term teleconnection between Antarctic Sea ice and Artic Sea ice, though, as predicted by GCM’s, they will each behave a bit differently to AGW. Of particular note should be the fact that the Arctic has not seen a positive anomaly since 2004, whereas as the Antarctic has seen both positive and negative anomalies in that time period. This long period on time without seeing a positive sea ice anomaly in the Arctic is very significant, as it shows that something has happened beyond simple year-to-year variability. It is far too much outside the limits of standard deviation for far too long not to take notice. One would have thought that the longest and deepest solar mimimum in a century would have at least snapped this long term decline if it was just “natural” variabililty, and hence this is just one of the major reasons why I am a “warmist” and remain 75% convinced that AGW is the reason behind this long decline of Arctic Sea ice. Could it be other factors, such as a longer term cycle in the PDO, etc? Absolutely it could, but I think that is far less likely scenario than AGW. In this way, I part ways with people like Joe Bastardi in particular, in that he thinks that Arctic Sea ice is going to bounce back over the next few years, and I think this is unlikely, and we’ll continue to spiral down to a seasonally ice free Arctic in the next 20 years or so.
Gail Combs says:
September 3, 2010 at 12:32 pm
You know you are hitting close to the truth when the ad hominem attacks come fast and furious.
——
Oh, that’s why all the Super Skeptics are attacking my data driven posts by calling me names. Thanks for clearing that up Gail.
My post that generated all the heat:
Today 2010 has 2005 beat leaving the Goddard Minimum far behind.
Let’s look at the standings.
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: Busted Today!!!
2009 Min:5,249,844: ???
This puts 2010 in the top four lowest sea ice extents in the JAXA record and there is still time on the clock.
I Know what the P in Jeff P stands for….By the Way..Saw a 23 degree reading on the Healy Cam at 76 north..WUWT?…Stay tuned to the 6th of Sept..Its Over Johnny!!
R. Gates says:
September 3, 2010 at 11:54 am
> Continued high SST anomalies across much of the Arctic
> make me remain confident that we’ve got a few more weeks
> of decline in ice extent here in September (depending on
> winds of course), and am still calling for the final summer
> low to be set between Sept. 20 to Sept. 25.
Thank you for a testable prediction. I’m calling for a min around Labour Day (September 6th). See my post back in mid-August at http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/08/15/sea-ice-news-18/#comment-458213 for the rationale. I’m in the same boat as Livingston+Penn, in that I’m extrapolating statistics, and I don’t have a solid explanation for the root cause. Almost like “technical analysis” in the stock market.
Jeff P says:
September 3, 2010 at 1:21 pm
Gail Combs says:
September 3, 2010 at 12:32 pm
You know you are hitting close to the truth when the ad hominem attacks come fast and furious.
——
Oh, that’s why all the Super Skeptics are attacking my data driven posts by calling me names. Thanks for clearing that up Gail.
______________________________________
Another lie from Jeff P. imagine that. Not a single person on this thread attacked any of your data driven posts. And the only “names” you were called (using a very loose definition) was “biased” and I said, as much as Steven is obviously desperate you are obsessed/stalking him.
Now was this year the 4th lowest or fifth highest in the JAXA record?
Also I like the exclamation points you use when the extent drops below anothe threshhold. It seems you are rooting for it to drop further so you can say I told you so, even though you proclaim that declining sea ice is a big problem we face. You are a very emotional person. Oops did I call you name?