Sea Ice News #25 – NSIDC says 2010 3rd lowest for Arctic sea ice

As I mentioned earlier, I held the WUWT Sea Ice News feature a day so that I could including an expected press release from NSDIC. I’m glad I did. Here it is, including yet another zinger from NSIDC director Mark Serreze. – Anthony

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Oct 4 2010 Arctic sea ice extent falls to third-lowest extent; downward trend persists

This is a press release from the National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC), which is part of the Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences at the University of Colorado at Boulder.

This September, Arctic sea ice extent was the third-lowest in the satellite record, falling below the extent reached last summer. The lowest- and second-lowest extents occurred in 2007 and 2008. Satellite data indicate that Arctic sea ice is continuing a long-term decline, and remains younger and thinner than it was in previous decades.

“All indications are that sea ice will continue to decline over the next several decades,” said NSIDC Director Mark Serreze. “We are still looking at a seasonally ice-free Arctic in twenty to thirty years.”

Over the summer of 2010, weather and ocean conditions in the Arctic ranged from warm and calm to stormy and cool. Overall, weather conditions were not extremely favorable to melt, but ice loss proceeded at a rapid pace. NSIDC Scientist Julienne Stroeve said, “Sea surface temperatures were warmer than normal this summer, but not as warm as the last three years. Even so, the 2010 minimum rivaled that in 2008—this suggests that other factors played a more dominant role.”

map with ice in white and land in gray

Figure 1. Arctic sea ice extent for September 2010 was 4.90 million square kilometers (1.89 million square miles), the third-lowest in the satellite record. The magenta line shows the median ice extent for September from 1979 to 2000. Sea Ice Index data. About the data.
—Credit: National Snow and Ice Data Center

The amount of old, thick ice in the Arctic continues to decline, making the ice pack increasingly vulnerable to melt in future summers. While there was an increase this year in second and third year ice, which could potentially thicken over the next few years, the oldest and generally thickest ice (five years or older) has now disappeared almost entirely from the Arctic. This September, less than 60,000 square kilometers (23,000 square miles) of five-year-old or older ice remained in the Arctic Basin. In the 1980s an average of 2 million square kilometers (722,000 square miles) of old ice remained at the end of summer. While the total coverage of multiyear ice is the third lowest on record, the amount of younger multiyear ice has rebounded somewhat over the last two years. A key question is whether this ice will continue to survive over the next couple of summers, perhaps slowing the overall decline in multiyear ice area,” said James Maslanik, a research professor in the Department of Aerospace Engineering Sciences at the University of Colorado, who provided the ice age data.

graph with extent on y axis and date on x axis

Figure 2. The updated time series plot puts this summer’s sea ice extent in context with other years. The solid light blue line indicates 2010; dark blue shows 2009, purple shows 2008; dashed green shows 2007; light green shows 2005; and solid gray indicates average extent from 1979 to 2000. Sea Ice Index data.
—Credit: National Snow and Ice Data Center

Arctic sea ice extent on September 19, the lowest point this year, was 4.60 million square kilometers (1.78 million square miles). Averaged over the month of September, ice extent was 4.90 million square kilometers (1.89 million square miles) (Figure 1). This places 2010 as the third lowest ice extent both for the daily minimum extent and the monthly average. Ice extent fell below 2009 and was only slightly above 2008 (Figure 2).

After September 10, ice extent started to climb, apparently signaling the end of the melt season. However, uncharacteristically, it then declined again, until September 19. “The late-season turnaround indicates that the ice cover is thin and loosely packed—which makes the ice more vulnerable both to winds and to melting,” said Walt Meier, NSIDC research scientist.

Arctic sea ice follows an annual cycle of melting and refreezing, melting through the warm summer months and refreezing through autumn and winter. Sea ice reflects sunlight, keeping the Arctic region cool and moderating global climate. While Arctic sea ice extent varies from year to year because of changeable atmospheric and ocean conditions, ice extent at the end of the melt season has shown a significant overall decline over the past thirty years. During this time, September ice extent has declined at a rate of 11.5 percent per decade during September (relative to the 1979 to 2000 average) (Figure 3), and about 3 percent per decade in the winter months.

graph with monthly trend line

Figure 3. September ice extent from 1979 to 2009 shows a continued decline. The September rate of sea ice decline since 1979 has now increased to 11.2 percent per decade. Sea Ice Index data.
—Credit: National Snow and Ice Data Cente

More Information

For further analysis and images, please see the related October post on Arctic Sea Ice News & Analysis Web site (http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/)

For a full listing of press resources concerning Arctic sea ice, including previous press releases and quick facts about why and how scientists study sea ice, please see “Press Resources” on the NSIDC Arctic Sea Ice News & Analysis Web page.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Source: http://nsidc.org/news/press/20101004_minimumpr.html

Well I hope I’m around in 30 years to look up Dr. Serreze.

Arctic Sea Ice is making a quick turnaround, the DMI 30% graph shows we are now at 2005 levels for 30% extent.

Have a look at this interesting animation showing the quick turnaround in ice extent in September…

Steve Goddard writes:

Blink comparator showing ice growth over the past week. More than 5,000 Manhattans of new ice have formed – one new Manhattan of ice every two minutes.


http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/CT/animate.arctic.color.0.html

The JAXA 15% extent graph shows a similar sharp turnaround.

…and a close up view shows that we are now slightly ahead of this date last year:

And 80N+ temperature remains close to climatology:

The Northwest passage appears to be fully closed:

So, in a nutshell, things are icing up quickly. 2011 looks to be interesting!

Don’t forget to check status at the WUWT Sea Ice Page.



Advertisements

85 thoughts on “Sea Ice News #25 – NSIDC says 2010 3rd lowest for Arctic sea ice

  1. The article said:

    …and a close up view shows that we are now slightly ahead of this date last year:

    For those interested, on Oct 3:
    2009 = 5740000 km^2
    2010 = 5797031 km^2

    Thought I’d brag a bit, here’s what I guessed early on Sept 27 in the Sea Ice News #24 thread:
    “…I suspect we’ll be within 100000 km^2 of 2009 on Sept 30 and will surpass it in the first week of Oct (heck, I’ll lay down an ambitious guess of passing it on Oct 3)…”

    Link: https://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/09/26/sea-ice-news-24/#comment-492696

    I’ll also admit my correct guess had a fair amount of luck in it. Oct 4, 2009 was a poor gain day, so we’ve already surpassed it too.

    -Scott

  2. If they had said, We are still looking at a seasonally ice-free Arctic in fifty to sixty years I might buy it but this is likely to be a thorn in their side for the next 40+ years.

  3. But next year is meltdown:
    http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Newsroom/view.php?id=22250

    Arctic Meltdown
    February 27, 2001

    The Arctic ice cap is melting at a rate that could allow routine commercial shipping through the far north in a decade and open up new fisheries. But a report for the US Navy seen by New Scientist reveals that naval vessels will be unable to police these areas.

    It was in 1906, after centuries of attempts, that Roald Amundsen finally navigated the North-West Passage through the sea ice north of Canada. Even today, only specially strengthened ships can make the trip.

    But in 10 years’ time, if melting patterns change as predicted, the North-West Passage could be open to ordinary shipping for a month each summer. And the Northern Sea Route across the top of Russia could allow shipping for at least two months a year in as little as five years.

    Peter Wadhams of the Scott Polar Research Institute in Cambridge agrees that the Arctic could soon open up. “Within a decade we can expect regular summer trade there,”he predicts.

    Remember, this was in 2001.

  4. Okay, so I’ve brought up a question a few times before, but it wasn’t really pressing then. Now now the discrepancy has become a lot more apparent, so I’ll bring it up again:

    Just watts up with the DMI plot? DMI 30% extent has topped both 2005 and 2009 now. But JAXA 15% extent has 2010 being 57k above 2009 and 106k below 2005. CT area has 2010 about 40k below 2009 right now and a whopping 696k below 2005, which is absolutely huge.

    I expect 30% extent to behave somewhere between area and 15% extent, so the 2009 comparison numbers are reasonable, but the 2005 numbers seem way out there. I know there’s a good deal of uncertainty in area measurements, but can that really explain this discrepancy? I don’t think so…

    Does anyone have a good explanation?

    -Scott

  5. The amount of old, thick ice in the Arctic continues to decline, making the ice pack increasingly vulnerable to melt in future summers. While there was an increase this year in second and third year ice, which could potentially thicken over the next few years, the oldest and generally thickest ice (five years or older) has now disappeared almost entirely from the Arctic.

    “While the total coverage of multiyear ice is the third lowest on record, the amount of younger multiyear ice has rebounded somewhat over the last two years. A key question is whether this ice will continue to survive over the next couple of summers, perhaps slowing the overall decline in multiyear ice area,” said James Maslanik, a research professor in the Department of Aerospace Engineering Sciences at the University of Colorado, who provided the ice age data.

    Never have I heard such a massively negative spin applied to a reasonably promising situation. We did speculate how long they would be able to use the 2007 minimum as a scary figure to keep up alarm. Now it’s the “generally thickest ice (five years or older)” that they are harping on about. How long before it is “generally thickest ice (ten years or older)”? Another five years, perhaps? Sheesh!

    The only trouble is that the media will lap it up, and the message of the recovering ice will be entirely hidden. I hope WUWT can dispel at least some of the impending doom messages.

  6. Scott says:
    October 4, 2010 at 3:18 pm

    Does anyone have a good explanation?

    ====

    Mine would be, its all garbled carpl; fubar.

  7. The others have a huge agenda…. NH cannot be allowed to recover, especially this crucial funding year. Unfortunately you will have to Follow D’Aleo at ICECAP who has got it right and the recovery will be a whopping one this time round, enough to scuttle AGW. The scandinavians (DMI) are a bit more honest.

  8. “Two steps forward,One step back”-Joe Bastardi.
    he and Piers Corbyn are to be listened to.
    Got Coal?

  9. If not for only a short 2-3 week period in september, 2010 would have been virtually identical to 2009, despite an El Nino year! Alarmism is not backed by facts…

  10. With sea ice extent being affected by prevailing winds at any particular time in the year does not the area under each annual graph give a more useful measure of annual sea ice extent year on year. What story does that tell?

  11. If I’m not mistaken, this year’s first-year (aka: new) ice, you know the stuff that’s so easy to travel on so that you can messure it along the way and conclude that all the ice is first-year ice, is in fact next year’s two-year ice. When the icecap expands starting at a low extent, each year you will have a lot of first-year ice.

    I’ll bet you that this will be spun and come out of the mangler as: there has been ever more first year ice (bad, bad, bad!) over the past few years. Hence, we’re in the big melt, when in fact the opposite will be the case.

  12. Figure 3 on September ice extent from 1979 to 2009 looks as if one could draw a relatively horizontal line through the data from 1979 to around 1996 and steeper decline from then until present. Instead of always seeing 1979-2000 as the baseline norm, it would be interesting to see means for all three decades. Interestingly mean global temperature shows the opposite trend: steep increase until 1998 and modest to negligible increase until present. Did something unusual begin to happen to sea ice in the late 1990s? Did more multi-year ice get moved into regions where it was more susceptible to summer melt?

  13. Since there is only 30 years or so of satellite data, and since there are reports in the I believe the early 1930s and 1950s of very low polar ice, it sure seems like the minimums may follow some cycle. If the minimum arctic ice is like a sine wave (which might follow, um, maybe SOLAR CYCLES, like other climate cycles appear to be following . . . ! ) , and if in the late 1970s, we were at the top of the crest of the sine wave, and 30 years later, we are at the bottom of the sine wave (and beginning to rise again), a ‘linear’ fit would still show a ‘downtrend’ as reported. Even though the minimum is past.

    But because the data isn’t long enough, that isn’t recognized ( . . at least by some . . . ! );

    And to be fair, we don’t for certainty. Though it still has to be asked, is that where we are with the arctic ice?

    Let’s we what the next few years bring. My bet is on the ice.

  14. It should be pointed out that the nsidc chart comparing the age of ice (see link) between March and September 2010 is somewhat disingenous, to put it mildly.

    On October 1st every year, the Canadian Ice Service re-categorises all the surviving ice to be a year older. Kind of like the ice celebrating its’ birthday. (:-

    Since almost all the ice on the September 2010 chart will still be there next March, it needs to be aged by 1 year if a valid comparison is to be made with the March 2010 chart. Only ice that forms between now and March 2011 will be designed “first-year ice” on the March 2011 chart.

    I will leave you all to form your own opinions as to whether the NSIDC is presenting the charts in a deliberately misleading manner to make the situation appear worse than it actually is.

  15. oops, last line should have said ‘Let’s SEE what the next few years bring . . . ( . . bad fingers . . )

  16. I wish these “scientists” were not so much advocates as they are impartial observers of the data. He says “Satellite data indicate that Arctic sea ice is continuing a long-term decline”. We have 9 years of satellite data, and for one month during the year, ice extent was the highest of the 9 years. We also have a period where it was the 3rd lowest–out of 9. The alarmism doesn’t bear out.

  17. Let’s see if I have this right.

    2010 will be the 3rd lowest with 2007 and 2008 being the lowest and second lowest respectively.

    If I may rephrase….

    2007 was a minimum with ice extent increasing in 2008 and 2009 respectively. 2010 is forecast to be a slight decrease from 2009, but as it is only October, that is just a forecast. May I observe that neither weather nor climate forecasting being an exact science, I for one will wait and see. In the meantime, the recent trend seems to be increasing ice extent, quite contrary to the hockey stick air temperature increases and predictions of polar amplification, and more in tune with falling ocean heat content.

    Ocean mass being orders of magnitude higher than that of the atmosphere, seems to me ice extent is being tugged along like a small child by a parent. The somewhat larger child (atmosphere) will be soon spoken to sharply and told in no uncertain terms:

    We’re going THIS way.

  18. “All indications are that sea ice will continue to decline over the next several decades”

    “All indications”? “Continue”? Fallacy of arbitrary starting point. If you use the 70’s as a starting point, everything will appear to be in a decline even when it is rising.

    “the third-lowest in the satellite record”

    Where the four lowest were in the past three years plus this year. So third lowest out of 4 years is what they’re saying (or trying to hide). Aside from divine intervention, I don’t see how recovery could be any faster. On a side-topic, is recovery really important? Seems like ice free north pole isn’t really that special.

  19. Based upon the straight line from Fig 3, I calculate ice-free around 2075, yet Mr Serreze says “We are still looking at a seasonally ice-free Arctic in twenty to thirty years.”. I understand that he probably thinks there will be some acceleration of ice loss, but is the model he proposes ever stated? If he believes ice-free in twenty or thirty years then he must have a model and that model must have intermediate values, so where are the NSIDC predictions for 5, 10, 15 and 20 years from now?

  20. The amount of old, thick ice in the Arctic continues to decline, making the ice pack increasingly vulnerable to melt in future summers.

    First, I’m not worried in the least by the “vulnerability” of the Arctic to melt, Period. For example, I’d much rather see melting than a propensity for the Arctic to increasingly freeze. Tropical living just doesn’t seem all that bad to me. Plus, “Hundreds of thousands of migrants to Florida can’t be wrong.”

    NSIDC says 2010 3rd lowest for Arctic sea ice

    Not even close, because according to Climate Science “tenets”, this is impossible. A continued downward spiral in Arctic ice extent should have already ensued at least two times ago.

    Frankly, I say the Commie Warmista’s should go FTS’s, because , quite simply, I am not their bitch.

  21. climatebeagle says October 4, 2010 at 4:47 pm

    Based upon the straight line from Fig 3, I calculate ice-free around 2075, yet Mr Serreze says “We are still looking at a seasonally ice-free Arctic in twenty to thirty years.”. I understand that he probably thinks there will be some acceleration of ice loss, but is the model he proposes ever stated? If he believes ice-free in twenty or thirty years then he must have a model and that model must have intermediate values, so where are the NSIDC predictions for 5, 10, 15 and 20 years from now?

    Hmmm, so it no longer going to disappear in the next five years.

    There’s a good chance that I will still be around in fifteen years, so I guess I will be able to check whether it is still on track.

  22. Satellite data indicate that Arctic sea ice is continuing a long-term decline

    Satellite data goes back only 31 years. 31 years in not a long term time period. So long term forecasting cannot be made from it.

  23. “All indications are that sea ice will continue to decline over the next several decades,” said NSIDC Director Mark Serreze.

    I don’t know how someone can look at all indicators and come to that conclusion.

  24. “All indications are”
    “this suggests that other factors played a more dominant role.”
    ===========================================
    Imply that they understand “all indications”
    and then say they don’t understand it all……….

    Then go on to make an outlandish prediction, based only on a trend……..

    Exactly what happend to the hurricane predicitons this year.

  25. since 1979 has now increased to 11.2 percent per decade

    These folks are boringly predictable.

    Arctic ice actually has been increasing over the last 1000 years.

    A peer-reviewed paper published in the Canadian Journal of Earth Sciences finds that Arctic sea ice extent at the end of the 20th century was more extensive than most of the past 9000 years. The paper also finds that Arctic sea ice extent was on a declining trend over the past 9000 years, but recovered beginning sometime over the past 1000 years and has been relatively stable and extensive since.

    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/09/23/surprise-peer-reviewed-study-says-current-arctic-sea-ice-is-more-extensive-than-most-of-the-past-9000-years/

  26. Just as with the erroneous calls of extinction for the Pacific Sockeye from the crack(ed) scientists at the Department of Fisheries and Oceans among others, Arctic sea ice confounds the experts and manages to make their pronouncements of doom appear little more than educated (?) guesses. Bad guesses too.

  27. “All indications are that sea ice will continue to decline over the next several decades,” said NSIDC Director Mark Serreze.

    Didn’t bother to list them all.
    What about the cold PDO and the AMO turning in a few years time?
    How exactly does science determine from the wiggling Sea Ice Minimums when a corner is turned and when the trend will continue out in a straight-line fall?
    Time for some test cases. Just pick a couple of sets of cyclic data, making sure to catch the start of a decline, and cut it off somewhere before it changes back up. Have statistics attempt to predict which sets are about to turn, and which sets will continue on down.

  28. Amino Acids in Meteorites says:
    October 4, 2010 at 4:55 pm
    “Satellite data indicate that Arctic sea ice is continuing a long-term decline”

    Satellite data goes back only 31 years. 31 years in not a long term time period. So long term forecasting cannot be made from it.

    31 years is just about the time of a PDO phase. And satellite data also degrades along with the sensors it takes the data with. Indications are that QC of satellite data is not as stellar as some would have us believe.

  29. “All indications are that sea ice will continue to decline over the next several decades”

    Saying that after a rebound in the last few years tells me he’s lost the plot and needs to be replaced like Pachauri..

  30. “The amount of old, thick ice in the Arctic continues to decline, making the ice pack increasingly vulnerable to melt in future summers”

    And what the [snip] do we need this ice for? Frozen water is almost completely useless. It can’t be consumed or swum in. It’s only useful for scotch on the rocks or political ideals..

  31. Lets just say for a minute that we have a large recovery next year….the spin will be:
    2011 ice extent although higher this year, will continue to recede etc. etc…..

  32. Stephan,
    Thank you for sharing the link. I hope Cuccinelli and Russell are successful in their attempt to get money back for the Commonwealth of Virginia. Climate scientists should not be able to defraud the taxpayers and get away with it.

  33. I might also add that the later Sept. minimum is not univerally shared across all reportings.
    JAXA, NSIDC and DMI agree, but Bremen and NORSEX do not.
    This throws some uncertainty into the mix, and thus the caveat that not all processes to determine the Sea Ice Extent and Areas work 100% all the time.
    All are above 2007 levels, though some are also above 2008 levels while others are at 2008 levels, for the Minimum Extent.
    Joe Bastardi called it very well, and also calls for a big recovery next year as La Nina works it’s magic alongside the cold PDO.

  34. Scott,

    You bring up an interesting question (the differences between DMI and JAXA readings) and many others have scratched their heads on that one too.

    Here was a previous discussion on this topic….

    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/08/04/discrepancies-in-sea-ice-measurements/

    It would be cool to see an in depth analysis between DMI, JAXA, and of course NSIDC, to see which is king.

    On a related subject, recall this discussion on polar temperature readings and the differences with DMI and GISS, which might shed some light on the DMI approach, which appears to me like honest science:

    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/07/28/giss-arctic-vs-dmi-arctic-differences-in-method/

    Also in that article, the DMI official discusses the affinity they have with the ECMWF, which is, hands down, the most reliable general circulation model in the world. That is a clue to me right there about DMI’s integrity [although I am a bit off subject from talking about sea ice extent lol].

    Back to sea ice…you will hear the alarmists regularly using the JAXA and NSIDC graph howling “See, I told you! It’s a death spiral.”

    Meanwhile….they are pushing the DMI graphs under the rug, hoping you won’t see them.

    Chris
    Norfolk, VA, USA

  35. rbateman says:
    October 4, 2010 at 5:34 pm
    “All indications are that sea ice will continue to decline over the next several decades,” said NSIDC Director Mark Serreze.

    Didn’t bother to list them all.
    What about the cold PDO and the AMO turning in a few years time?
    How exactly does science determine from the wiggling Sea Ice Minimums when a corner is turned and when the trend will continue out in a straight-line fall?
    Time for some test cases. Just pick a couple of sets of cyclic data, making sure to catch the start of a decline, and cut it off somewhere before it changes back up. Have statistics attempt to predict which sets are about to turn, and which sets will continue on down.

    ======================

    You have hit the nail on that head and banged it flush into the wood.

    -Chris
    Norfolk, VA, USA

  36. “All indications are that sea ice will continue to decline over the next several decades,” said NSIDC Director Mark Serreze. “We are still looking at a seasonally ice-free Arctic in twenty to thirty years.”

    Serreze almost nailed it, the last sentence should read;

    “We are still looking at a seasonally ice-free Arctic in ten to twenty years.”

  37. No Olaf, Scotch should be taken neat or with a wee bit of water, never on ice. (Well, good single malt anyway.) Ice, is very nice with Rye, however. Me thinks Mr. Serreze is drinking just a little to much of his own wine with this prediction.

  38. I wonder how many years Mark Serreze had to go to college to figure out out to do a linear fit to a noise signal? Was this covered in his advanced calculus courses?

    I believe there is a good reason why he didn’t do a multiple term curve fit… perhaps because that would show a trend reversal in recent years?

  39. EFS Junior, I suspect there are a LOT of people who would love to take you up on that bet (that there will be seasonable ice free arctic in ten to twenty years). I don’t get why you like to keep ‘trolling’ here . . .

  40. Rhoda R says:
    October 4, 2010 at 9:34 pm

    That article needs to be dug into. You take warnings of impending events seriously, rather than agendas meant to soak up your tax dollars or justify budget allocations.

  41. Interesting to see that NSIDC, albeit unable to predict what will happen in the next month or so, know better what will happen in next decades and “are still looking at a seasonally ice-free Arctic in twenty to thirty years”.

    But it seems that many of us envy their glory and even this blog focused on feasibility of predictions this summer. However the predicted low melting (with minimum at 5.5 million km²) did not come true. In contrast, I think that an interesting development this summer was the (unpredicted) very high rate at which the departure from mean of the Global Sea Ice Area dropped (as shown in the last graph in the WUWT Sea Ice Page, labelled “daily global sea ice anomaly”) reaching a (second?) record low a few days ago.

    A friend written me a couple of years ago “I have come to believe that Mother Nature is hard to predict … with many “unexpected” modes of behavior. I also sometimes wonder if she takes a small-minded pleasure in humbling over-confident scientists”.

    My own explanation of why Nature is, and will be, hard to predict is in my “Random Walk on Water” paper (http://www.itia.ntua.gr/en/docinfo/923/).

  42. Steve Goddard writes:

    Blink comparator showing ice growth over the past week. More than 5,000 Manhattans of new ice have formed – one new Manhattan of ice every two minutes.
    =========

    Steve, thanks for that analogy!! That really puts the vast scale of the Arctic ice mass into some perspective. Amazing….

  43. Wilky says:
    October 4, 2010 at 8:54 pm
    I wonder how many years Mark Serreze had to go to college to figure out out to do a linear fit to a noise signal? Was this covered in his advanced calculus courses?

    I believe there is a good reason why he didn’t do a multiple term curve fit… perhaps because that would show a trend reversal in recent years?
    _____________________________________________________________

    NOPE!

    Quadratic or cubic fits give larger R^2 values, and all leading coefficients are negative (meaning that the leading term will dominate “if” extrapolated (concave down)).

    The linear downward trend for Arctic sea ice extent (NSIDC monthly means) started in 1984 and all following years have also had a downward trend (1984-2010, N = 27 consecutive years), the last 15 years (1996-2010) show the rate of increase of the linear trend to be -0.0033E6 km^2/yr (R^0.95), current linear rate is -0.0813E6 km^2/yr (0.0033/0.0813 ~4% steeper each successive year).

    The linear downward trend for Arctic sea ice area (NSIDC monthly means) started in 1981 (area) and all following years have also had a downward trend (1981-2010, N = 30 consecutive years), the last 15 years (1996-2010) show the rate of increase of the linear trend to be -0.0024E6 km^2/yr (R^0.93), current linear rate is -0.0739E6 km^2/yr (0.0024/0.0739 ~3% steeper each successive year (note this smaller value (3%) relative to the extent (4%) is consistent with high extent/area ratios (~1.6 for the past four years vs ~1.4 for the previous five years) that exist during the summer minimum).

    This works for extent or area data, for the modern satellite era (1979-2010, N = 32 or 1972-2010, N = 39) or for the sea chart/satellite era (1953-2010, N = 58).

    All show the same thing “if” one chooses to extrapolate the quadratic (2030-2040) or cubic (2010-2020) trendlines, and for the big “IF” linear extrapolations show 2066-2189 (of course extrapolations of 56-179 years are a BIT of a stretch compared to 10-20 years).

  44. Rhoda R says:
    October 4, 2010 at 9:34 pm
    Interestingly enough, the Russians are predicting the coldest winter in 1000 years:
    http://rt.com/prime-time/2010-10-04/coldest-winter-emergency-measures.html

    They’re basing their prediction on a weaker than normal Gulf Stream. Is the Gulf Stream Current known to be weaker this year?

    ===================================

    Actually back in the NH winter of this year there was a flurry of reports “Gulf Stream Not Slowing Down.”

    But that is an aggressive prediction by Russia. In 1000 years.

    Needless to say their forecasts have not been affected by the CAGW orthodoxy coming from the likes of the UKMet and NOAA.

    Will be interested to hear more.

    I seem to recall that Russian researchers are more apt to look into extra-terrestrial cycles as being an issue here.

    Is there something that they are not telling us?

    In 1000 years. Wow.

    Want to see the analysis here.

    Even at the expense of errors of the bimbo American reporter who totally misses words and concepts… [Watch the video lol. That part is funny.]…this is serious.

    Thanks to Rhoda R for the tip-off.

    http://rt.com/prime-time/2010-10-04/coldest-winter-emergency-measures.html

    -Chris
    Norfolk, VA, USA

  45. As we all know that major oceanic oscillations (PDO, AMO) are a biphasic 70-odd year cycle, isn’t there a reasonable chance that something similar might be true for Arctic Ice?

    Makes you wonder whether a 30 year linear plot will, in history, be the best way of monitoring the long-term state of the ice??

  46. EFS_Junior says:

    NOPE!

    “The linear downward trend for Arctic sea ice extent (NSIDC monthly means) started in 1984 …”

    “The linear downward trend for Arctic sea ice area (NSIDC monthly means) started in 1981 (area)”

    ==============================

    Started in 1984?

    OK even earlier….in 1981.

    1981 – 2010 = 29 years

    4.6 billion / 29 = 158,620,690

    Drop in the bucket.

    Chris
    Norfolk, VA, USA

    OMG OMG the sky is falling the sky is falling the ice is melting the ice is melting…the world is ending the world is ending.

    -Chris
    Norfolk, VA, USA

  47. A few minor corrections to my last post;

    “This works …” refers to linear and polynomial least squares regressions.

    R^0.95 should be R^2 = 0.95 and R^0.93 should be R^2 = 0.93

    In the last sentence “(2030-2040)” refers to when the extrapolation crosses the x-axis (zero) (and similarly for “(2020-2030)”).

  48. savethesharks says:
    October 4, 2010 at 10:40 pm
    EFS_Junior says:

    NOPE!

    “The linear downward trend for Arctic sea ice extent (NSIDC monthly means) started in 1984 …”

    “The linear downward trend for Arctic sea ice area (NSIDC monthly means) started in 1981 (area)”

    ==============================

    Started in 1984?

    OK even earlier….in 1981.

    1981 – 2010 = 29 years

    4.6 billion / 29 = 158,620,690

    Drop in the bucket.

    Chris
    Norfolk, VA, USA

    OMG OMG the sky is falling the sky is falling the ice is melting the ice is melting…the world is ending the world is ending.

    -Chris
    Norfolk, VA, USA
    _____________________________________________________________

    The start year where the linear slope stays negative for N consecutive years.

    1981-2010 includes both 1981 and 2010 (and all years in between), therefore N = 30.

    “The estimated age of the universe is 13.75 ± 0.17 billion years,”

    Hmm …

    13.75E9/30 = 458,333,333

    Don’t know what the heck that means with respect to TODAY and the next few decades though, you know like O(1).

  49. It’s interesting to see the arctic ice volumes from PIPS 2.0 (the erstwhile Steve Goddard’s favourite dataset). Unlike Steve, I’ve correctly included concentration as well as thickness in the following plots. On the basis of his erroneous sums, Steve predicted 5.5 M km^2 for the ice extent. A little more cautiously I said 2010 would “probably be below 2009” which would make this year the second lowest volume. Here are the PIPS 2.0 volumes for the last three months:

    and the PIPS 2.0 September volumes since 2002:

    2010 just beat 2009 in terms of volume.

    Certainly PIPS 2.0 shows a much slower volume loss this year than might have been extrapolated from the dataset up to 2008, but hardly a recovery. It will take a few more years of proper data (PIPS 2.0 is model output anchored to SSMI ice areas, not real volume measurements) to see whether the Arctic ice might be at risk of complete summer loss over timescales of a few years, or a few decades.

    I’ll post the code for getting these volumes from PIPS if anyone’s interested.

  50. 2010 the third lowest ice cover? If there is a recovery from a record low, regardless of the length of that ‘record’ then following years will be down the list from the record.
    Saying that it is the third lowest proves nothing especially if there is a record refreeze.
    As I suspected NSIDC has glossed over the facts with their spin on the facts.

  51. I wonder if Frank makes an interesting point: nothing very much seems to happens to ice extent between 1979 and about 1998, despite this being (I am happy to accept) a time when temperatures, on average, rose quite quickly. Since then, temperatures seem to have been pretty flat, whereas, ice extent fell quite sharply.

    The obvious first question to investigate, it seems to me, is whether thermal inertia largely explains what is going (or went) on. Simply put, a build up of heat in the 80s and 90s resulted in an eventual decrease in ice extent in the noughties. Perhaps in the last couple of years, we have seen that build up of heat exhaust itself, and the relatively flat temperatures of the last 10+ years will result in the ice extent stabilising or even “recovering”?

    It would be a shame if explosively-enforced paradigms discouraged scientists from asking interesting questions.

  52. Scott says:
    October 4, 2010 at 3:18 pm
    “Does anyone have a good explanation?”

    We know from the Satellitegate fiasco that the measurement systems are prone to degradation over time and that the data itself is poorly managed. Not easy to get good quality consistent data from different sources – it’s a travesty!

  53. bateman says:
    October 4, 2010 at 5:34 pm
    “How exactly does science determine from the wiggling Sea Ice Minimums when a corner is turned and when the trend will continue out in a straight-line fall?

    Time for some test cases. Just pick a couple of sets of cyclic data, making sure to catch the start of a decline, and cut it off somewhere before it changes back up. Have statistics attempt to predict which sets are about to turn, and which sets will continue on down.”

    Thanks Rob for a good explanation of why trying to use linear trends on data taken from quasi-cyclical system driven by deterministic chaos is a fruitless exercise.

    People like NSIDC director Mark Serreze must know of this problem, yet they still foist this rubbish on the public.

  54. Ice loss was so bad this year that they were able to find the wreck of HMS Investigator, that sank whilst searching for the North West Passage in 1853. As ice loss has never been so bad before, clearly HMS Investigator must have been dropped through the ice by an alien space ship How else could it have got there, it can’t have broken through ice under sail power. What other explanation is there?

    Good to see that intrepid UK adventurer Bear Grylls made it through the NWP this year in a powerful RIB. His start was delayed due to mother nature. ??? Don’t know what that means? Success depended on their ice breaking support ship. So it wasn’t that clear of ice then?

    When Columbus discovered America, he had a map. Someone had been there before. When Captain Cook discovered Australia, he had a map. Someone had been there before.

    100’s of people perished in the search for the North West Passage. Was it because they knew it was there, that someone had been there before. They had a map?

  55. The problem with using 15% as a measure of sea ice extent is, I believe, flawed.

    Because of the large amount of space between chunks of ice at 15%, then dependent only on currents and winds there is a theoretical possible approx 6:1 ratio of total ice coverage from its loosest to its tightest packing.

    The 30% measure improves the situation, but the possible variation is still large in comparison with the year to year variations we are being asked to believe are a measure of whether the arctic is melting or freezing.

    Discussions of temperature (sea or air) would seem to be meaningless in the context of arctic ice coverage if the effects of wind and current cannot be isolated.

    I suspect that the sudden drop in extent in September is more likely to be caused by wind shift causing packing rather than actual ice melting, especially given ambient temperatures at the time (I am assuming here that could not have been a rapid rise in sea surface temperature at the time).

    If this is indeed the case then it is intellectually dishonest of NSDIC not to mention the possibility, and of course forecasting future arctic ice behaviour would depend on the ability to predict wind patterns years in advance.

  56. I know that somehow the summer of 2010 in the Northern Hemisphere is going to be touted as “the hottest ever”. If so, why wasn’t the ice loss worse?

  57. TomRude says:
    October 4, 2010 at 3:49 pm
    If not for only a short 2-3 week period in september, 2010 would have been virtually identical to 2009, despite an El Nino year! Alarmism is not backed by facts…
    ______

    “If not for…” statements are excuses. It was what it was, and the facts say that the Arctic has not seen a positive sea ice anomaly since 2004. Dems da facts…and “if not for…” statements are meaningless.

  58. Tom P says:
    October 5, 2010 at 12:22 am
    It’s interesting to see the arctic ice volumes from PIPS 2.0 (the erstwhile Steve Goddard’s favourite dataset). Unlike Steve, I’ve correctly included concentration as well as thickness in the following plots. On the basis of his erroneous sums, Steve predicted 5.5 M km^2 for the ice extent. A little more cautiously I said 2010 would “probably be below 2009″ which would make this year the second lowest volume. Here are the PIPS 2.0 volumes for the last three months:

    and the PIPS 2.0 September volumes since 2002:

    2010 just beat 2009 in terms of volume.

    Certainly PIPS 2.0 shows a much slower volume loss this year than might have been extrapolated from the dataset up to 2008, but hardly a recovery. It will take a few more years of proper data (PIPS 2.0 is model output anchored to SSMI ice areas, not real volume measurements) to see whether the Arctic ice might be at risk of complete summer loss over timescales of a few years, or a few decades.

    I’ll post the code for getting these volumes from PIPS if anyone’s interested.
    _____________________________________________________________

    Good job.

    I for one, would be very interested in the (your) code.

    I’ve started the reverse engineering of the PIOMAS charts and would like to compare their model data for total Arctic sea ice volume with the PIPS 2.0 model data (assimilated correctly by cross-integration of the thickness and concentration PIPS images and if you then converted these to actual engineering units (km^3) vs “pixel-metres”).

    Something SG needed to do, to see if PIPS was/is conservative (gives higher volumes and by how much on average and seasonally (bi-monthly)) than PIOMAS.

    If you need an email address, I have “dump side” email address that I’m willing to post here (I only read it if there is something that I request from someone else in particular).

  59. Scott says:
    October 4, 2010 at 3:18 pm
    Okay, so I’ve brought up a question a few times before, but it wasn’t really pressing then. Now now the discrepancy has become a lot more apparent, so I’ll bring it up again:

    Just watts up with the DMI plot? DMI 30% extent has topped both 2005 and 2009 now. But JAXA 15% extent has 2010 being 57k above 2009 and 106k below 2005. CT area has 2010 about 40k below 2009 right now and a whopping 696k below 2005, which is absolutely huge.

    I expect 30% extent to behave somewhere between area and 15% extent, so the 2009 comparison numbers are reasonable, but the 2005 numbers seem way out there. I know there’s a good deal of uncertainty in area measurements, but can that really explain this discrepancy? I don’t think so…

    Does anyone have a good explanation?

    -Scott
    _____________________________________________________________

    Scott,

    I’m going to try to answer your question by posting a bunch of numbers (three significant digits, all values in millions of km^2).

    For 10/1/2010 (rows are (1) Site, (2) Area or Extent, and (3) Concentration);

    Norsex UIUC DMI JAXA NSIDC Bremen Norsex
    5.12 4.01 4.64 5.67 5.53 5.65 6.47
    100% 100% 30% 15% 15% 15% 15%

    For the same date in 2005 and 2009;

    Date UIUC DMI JAXA
    2005 4.71 4.56 5.86
    2009 4.05 4.40 5.75

    (if these show up as single spaced, I can repost with commas to eliminate any confusion)

    1) For 2009, DMI data appears to be “bad” for the period 10/1/2009 thru 10/18/2009, looking closely at this period there are too many vertical and horizontal lines of pixels, that do not show up elsewhere in their graphic.

    2) However, the above does not explain why, for 10/1/2010, DMI shows a larger number of 4.64 (30%) vs UIUC of 4.01 (1005).

    3) With the exception of JAXA, NSIDC, Bremen (all three 15%), and UIUC (100%), the other datasets (Norsex and DMI) must be considered “self-contained” meaning their numbers are good for comparison within each record itself. I have much more to say with respect to DMI and Norsex, and would like to discuss them in a follow-up post.

    4) I find the extents and area statistics for JAXA, NSIDC, Bremen, and UIUC for the last 40 days (ending 10/3/2010) as (mean and standard deviation (to four signidicant digits));

    NSIDC,4.963,0.262
    Bremen,5.013,0.231
    JAXA,5.165,0.232
    UIUC,3.383,0.293

    Note the differences in the mean extents for the first three (15%).

    5) Most all my data efforts have been between UIUC, NSIDC, and JAXA. This is ongoing work, as I want to mix and match correctly between these three datasets.

    I would like us to continue this dialog, as I think it would benefit both of us, and perhaps, the wider WUWT community at large.

    Respectfully,
    Junior

  60. EFS_Junior,

    “Serreze almost nailed it, the last sentence should read;

    “We are still looking at a seasonally ice-free Arctic in ten to twenty years.”
    ==================

    Right. So if in twenty years the ice is still the same as today, will you publicly admit that you were wrong?

  61. Peter Plail says:
    October 5, 2010 at 5:13 am
    The problem with using 15% as a measure of sea ice extent is, I believe, flawed.

    Because of the large amount of space between chunks of ice at 15%, then dependent only on currents and winds there is a theoretical possible approx 6:1 ratio of total ice coverage from its loosest to its tightest packing.

    The 30% measure improves the situation, but the possible variation is still large in comparison with the year to year variations we are being asked to believe are a measure of whether the arctic is melting or freezing.

    Discussions of temperature (sea or air) would seem to be meaningless in the context of arctic ice coverage if the effects of wind and current cannot be isolated.

    I suspect that the sudden drop in extent in September is more likely to be caused by wind shift causing packing rather than actual ice melting, especially given ambient temperatures at the time (I am assuming here that could not have been a rapid rise in sea surface temperature at the time).

    If this is indeed the case then it is intellectually dishonest of NSDIC not to mention the possibility, and of course forecasting future arctic ice behaviour would depend on the ability to predict wind patterns years in advance.
    _____________________________________________________________

    You go with what you can easily get with respect to available end products.

    You also forgot to mention SST vs air temperatures.

    I don’t think we can say with 100% certainty that it was 100% wind or 100% SST.

    It’s a combination of both and a matter of degree.

    So, for example, air temperatures drop below freezing, but SST remain above freezing (of either freshwater or saltwater). Surface melt stops, but subsurface melt continues, until the time when vertical overturning occurs, both locally and regionally, then basin-wise.

    You should look at the Extent/Area ratios as a weak proxy for sea ice volumes, using JAXA and UIUC data, in that you will see a distinct difference between 2002-2006 vs 2007-2010.

    It really is much more about sea ice volume than it is area or extent.

    The sea ice volume setup for 2011 does not look good, particularly if a lot of MYI is flushed out of the Fram Strait this fall/winter.

    The PIOMAS model indicates a new record low for 2010 at ~4E6 km^3 in September, and I believe that’s the 4th straight record breaker in the PIOMAS modelled sea ice volume;

    “Monthly average Arctic Ice Volume for Sept 2010 was 4,000 km^3, the lowest over the 1979-2010 period, 78% below the 1979 maximum and 9,400 km^3 or 70% below its mean for the 1979-2009 period.”

  62. A “small” correction to my last post;

    “… a new record low for 2010 at ~4E6 km^3 in …”

    should be;

    “… a new record low for 2010 at ~4E3 km^3 in …”

    per the PIOMAS website.

  63. I’m thinking that we will see a slowdown in ice growth till this weekend when I think it will spike up again (just looking at weather & stuff)..Speaking of weather… After 24 inches of rain from Mother natures heat release plan which zapped us into fall we got it goin on down here in the Carolinas..Fish on!

  64. OH & Also…1st Snow above 4000′ in the WV Alpps today & the earliest snow up at Mt Lacont,NC in 30 years…Who’s afraid of the big bad GW?..

  65. Another correction in my reply to Scott;

    “2) However, the above does not explain why, for 10/1/2010, DMI shows a larger number of 4.64 (30%) vs UIUC of 4.01 (1005).”

    should read;

    “2) However, the above does not explain why, for 10/1/2005, DMI shows a smaller number of 4.56 (30%) vs UIUC of 4.71 (100%).”

    Sorry for all these corrections. :(

  66. EFS_Junior
    Thanks for the comments – however did mention SST but suggested it would not have changed rapidly enough to caused a large drop in extent over a short time period. I would expect the effect of SST changes to have a smooth rather than abrupt changes in extent.

    I agree that volume is a better indicator of the health of the Arctic; as you observe extent is a poor proxy. Essentially what I failed to make clear is that extent is more susceptible to changes over the short term due to wind packing/unpacking effects (because, for example wind direction can change by up to 180degrees in a short time) than air or even more so SST. The short term effect of wind on volume is negligable without an accompanying change in air temperature except when it continues in one direction long enough to drive ice out. As you say, the outlook is poor for arctic ice if the wind, and not AGW effects, flush ice out through the Fram Straits. Which brings me back to the point, the wind seems to be a major influencer of ice mass in the Arctic, a point which NSDIC doesn’t seem to want to highlight.

  67. EFS_Junior,

    Thanks for the in-depth postings. I’m really busy now, and will be for a while, but I’ll try to address your comments as soon as I can. Just remember that you seem to have a good deal more statistical expertise than I do.

    Thanks again,

    -Scott

  68. Peter Plail says:
    October 6, 2010 at 4:59 am
    As you say, the outlook is poor for arctic ice if the wind, and not AGW effects, flush ice out through the Fram Straits. Which brings me back to the point, the wind seems to be a major influencer of ice mass in the Arctic, a point which NSDIC doesn’t seem to want to highlight.

    NSIDC does highlight wind at times. The thing is, wind can be a major factor but it isn’t always. With daily satellite monitoring, ice getting flushed out the strait is quantified, and it is reported when it’s a major contributor. This summer, very little seemed to be going south.

  69. The last 3 days of extent increase:

    Oct 2-3: 129843 km2
    Oct 3-4: 95625 km2
    Oct 4-5: 108750 km2

    This summers combination of below normal air temps and above normal sea temps, with el Nino ocean heat as usual finding its way to the Arctic, combined with the low extent minimum and large areas of open sea – all combine to put 2010 close to the records in one parameter: the amount of heat lost from the Arctic sea to air / space. This could be close to an all time high.

    This contributes to the bigger picture of global OHC decline.

  70. phlogiston says:
    October 6, 2010 at 10:07 pm
    The last 3 days of extent increase:

    Oct 2-3: 129843 km2
    Oct 3-4: 95625 km2
    Oct 4-5: 108750 km2

    This summers combination of below normal air temps and above normal sea temps, with el Nino ocean heat as usual finding its way to the Arctic, combined with the low extent minimum and large areas of open sea – all combine to put 2010 close to the records in one parameter: the amount of heat lost from the Arctic sea to air / space. This could be close to an all time high.

    This contributes to the bigger picture of global OHC decline.
    _____________________________________________________________

    Equation, theory, hypothesis, conjecture, or straight outa Bizzarro World?

    The Arctic heats up in the spring and summer, last time I checked. The air, the ice, the land, and the water all heat up

    There is net heat flux into the system during the spring and summer.

    Where is the direct evidence to support your claim, which BYW, makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.

    In fact, if you are talking about the fall winter net heat loss, only time will tell.

    BTW, I actually want the fastest freeze-up possible, then have all that ice covered with a few feet of snow ASAP. It’s just a conjecture on my part, as to what this would mean for total Arctic sea ice volume/thickness.

    If the PIOMAS numbers are to be believed, than starting out with an average sea ice thickness of ~1.2 metres is not a good thing IMHO.

  71. EFS_Junior says:
    October 7, 2010 at 11:40 am

    The Arctic heats up in the spring and summer, last time I checked. The air, the ice, the land, and the water all heat up

    There is net heat flux into the system during the spring and summer.

    Where is the direct evidence to support your claim, which BYW, makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.

    The last time I checked, heat moved from objects of higher temperature to those with lower temperature. To most people with a cursory familiarity with thermodynamics or just school physics, it will be self-evident that, if we are talking about heat movement from water to air, then if the air temperature is decreased, and the water temperature increases, then heat flow from water to air will rise.

    But that this “makes no sense” to you, in fact, makes perfect sense.

    I have noticed that AGW apologists are very similar to door-stopping Jehovah’s witnesses in the method they use to prepare and argue their position. (It is an appropriate comparison since AGW belief bears many characteristics of religious faith – more on this later).

    Door-to-door JW evangelists, if you give them the chance to state their case, have a small number of narrowly defined statements of faith and accompanying narratives, which they research in great detail and depth. The key to their arguing skill is to steer the debate onto these few key articles of belief, and keep away from other subject areas.

    Likewise your door-stopping AGW evangelists also have their equivalent of the Watchtower tracts, equipping them with detailed argument on the AGW articles of faith, such as Arrhenius CO2 radiative greenhouse warming, computer models of ocean and air circulation built on amplified CO2 forcing, and computer models of glacial and Arctic ice loss. These smart-suited devotees have similar skills in steering the debate onto these well prepared theaters of illusion.

    Two topics that are absent from this AGW approved list are the ocean and clouds. But your AGWer is quite content in the belief that neither of these can significantly affect climate.

    Thus it is not surprising to see your discomfort and surprise at having to consider a novel and unfamiliar concept such as loss of ocean heat to the atmosphere. If you want a primer on heat moving from hotter to colder things, here is one:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat

    I’ve been noticing more resemblances between AGW belief and some types of religion
    (it is too narrow to bracket all religion and faith together). Particularly, there is a major category of religious groups characterised by a very negative attitude toward and concept of the physical world. There are branches and sects of all the world’s major religions that despise “mortal flesh” and the physical world as evil and irredeemable, so that the devotee’s quest is to attain a metaphysical destiny of enlightenment, bliss or eternal life in rejection of the world. Many of these religious groups also have an apocalyptic world view of inevitable catastrophic destruction and termination of the world and of physical existence.

    This world-despising apocalyptic psycology is strongly present in what we can call the “Messianic AGW” religion. While believing in a past Edenic paradise, the present world is doomed to catastrophe and all human activity is unavoidably contributing to this catastrophe and thus evil.

    The scriptures of messianic AGW faith are written largely in computer code, the blessed GCM models which hover ethereally like the disembodied benevolent thetans of Scientology. The devotees of messianic AGW are not generally consciously aware of these religious forms but they subconsciously characterise their world-view. There is always an instinctive aversion to any direct interpretation of climate data or measurements of oceanic or solar processes, but an instinctive affinity for complex theoretic models involving series of assumptions all leading inevitably to the core belief of CO2 forcing just as all masonic forms and rituals lead eventully to the deity Jabulon.

    PIO-in-the-sky-MAS is a good example of this. It is quoted with reverence and veneration fitting to an article of scripture. Like the GCM models, it is used in the place of data by climate scientists, emphasising the status of such models as established articles of faith.

    PIO-in-th-sky-MAS failed miserably to make an accurate forecast of ice loss in the Arctic this year, as meticulously documented by Steve Goddard:

    http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2010/09/27/arctic-forecast-verification-3/#comments

    A true scientific understanding of underlying causes of variation in Arctic ice extent will require better experiments measurement, not more and more complex modeling based on a few scraps of data. Why cant some-one fly planes over the Arctic every month or so with radar to assess thickness for instance? Then we would have something to talk about. In the absence of such data, elaborate over-complex and unstable models like PIO-in-the-sky-MAS are no substitute, except for those with unconditional faith.

  72. fishnski says:
    October 5, 2010 at 3:07 pm
    I’m thinking that we will see a slowdown in ice growth till this weekend when I think it will spike up again (just looking at weather & stuff)..

    Anybody CKing out the real time Data?…quite a slow down..huh?

  73. The Barrow Ice cam is down (since 9/30) & it will be a shame if it is not fixed because I think that we could see ice on the beach very soon..within a week.
    Back in 07 we saw ice on the cam oct 19th but it came & went till early nov unlike some years where it comes & stays.

Comments are closed.