Joe Bastardi's 2011 Arctic Sea Ice Prediction

As I drove to work this morning at minus 36 degrees c , I was confronted by the shear absurdity of the whole conversation. ( central Alberta, Canada) Please maintain the battle for common sense.

We still have solar minimum conditions: http://www.landscheidt.info/?q=node/50
DNS value for today is 629.
Oceans continue to cool including the Med.
At the end of this month most of Western Europe, including parts of Portugal, Spain, and Italy, the US, Russia and Asia will be covered by snow. This is before the start of winter.
In the US it’s raining snow and cold records.
Also have a look at the SH where all the land masses show neutral-negative temp anomalies http://wxmaps.org/pix/temp7.html and have a look at the Antarctic Ice Extend which shows a record extend.
We clearly witness a change shift here to a colder weather regime.
In the mean time the UN IPCC comes out with the most alarmist report ever:
SEVERE CLIMATE WARNING
http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/2010/11/severe-climate-warning.html
I really hope it is their last.

1DandyTroll says:
November 23, 2010 at 11:37 pm
Pillock. Money doesn’t give the right answers. Honest research by the scientific method does. jeez

Ice extent is not a robust metric, as the amount of thicker multi-year ice also signals the amount of warming or cooling. Hence, ice mass balance should be the measurement tracked;
http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news.cfm?release=2010-379

Since the start of the satellite record in 1979, scientists have observed the continued disappearance of older “multiyear” sea ice that survives more than one summer melt season. Some scientists suspected that this loss was due entirely to wind pushing the ice out of the Arctic Basin — a process that scientists refer to as “export.” In this study, Ron Kwok and Glenn Cunningham at NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena, Calif., used a suite of satellite data to clarify the relative role of export versus melt within the Arctic Ocean.
Kwok and Cunningham show that between 1993 and 2009, a significant amount of multiyear ice — 1,400 cubic kilometers (336 cubic miles) — was lost due to melt, not export.

Joe Bastardi
in Final 2010 Arctic Sea Ice Summary – Sea Ice News #30
[November 23, 2010 at 3:45 am] says:
“My forecast for next year is for sea ice to melt only to levels we saw back in 2005, or 06. If I had to put a number on it, I think it would be around 5.5 at its lowest.
The ice is coming back, will do so in forward and back steps, with forward defeating the back steps. I am on record as saying we will be back to 1977 levels by 2030. The real problem would be is if there is no corresponding drop in the southern hemisphere sea ice. Like the 70s, cries of ice age will start again. So my forecast for next years melt is for 5.5.”

My gut feeling given official voice by Joe Bastardi, I’m with you brother, 5.5 it is.
Ironically like its evil relatives Communism/Marxism/Fascism/Socialism/Liberalism, the miserable relentless cold advances on: 2 steps forward – 1 step back. If this really is a generational length repetitious long cycle, one might compare us now to exiting the Eisenhower fifties about to enter the 60’s and 70’s. Yup, that was fun. This time it had better shut up the ecophobic warmie cult!
P.S. Planning to return to hit this thread next September. As I type this: 29 Responses so far (I wonder how many comments there will be in 10 months 😎

In response to Will, lets think globally. First of all, you can not have read anything I have said over the years, or watch what I do with the sea ice report, because everyone that has knows I have given time to the co2 argument, acknowledging the chance it may be right. However all I ask for is the 20-30 years to prove that it is not, not the shut down, nor the portraying as ignorant, those of us that
have a different opinion. The easy way out for me, and probably the much more profitable, is to simply side with the side that the money is on. However to me, all this is is a big forecast.. a grand one, 30 years long. And if I am right, who are people going to turn too when they want someone that can help them in long term planning. More important than that…it is a MATTER OF RIGHT AND WRONG on an idea. So I will try here to sum this up for those that think I dont even look at computers, or make willy nilly statements. So here we go: The southern hemisphere sea ice has COME UP the past 30 years almost as much as the northern hemisphere has come down. It really is intuitive as to what is going on. The warm PDO and AMO tandem warms the continents, of which most land mass is in the northern hemisphere. This means that the arctic ice cap, essentially land locked, has to shrink in response, because it is warming up around it for one, and for two, the AMO
has a direct way, with warm water, to attack the cap where it is more open. The simple test, without billions of dollars of research money, is to simply allow the cold pdo ( just started in 2007 ) and the coming cold amo ( should start around 2020) have their chance . Its easy and intuitive and of course very threatening to the multi trillion dollar industry and political and religious movement that this has become. I understand that. Now lets go to the southern hemisphere, mainly water. How is it that the sea ice has INCREASED, while the N hemisphere has decreased? The answer I propose, and again at the risk of blowing all the grant money out of the water, is that if we could accurately measure
the energy budget of the earth, we would find it is NOT CHANGING. That all that has happened is a northward distortion of where its warm, in response to a natural cyclical occurrence. So if you want to say the trend is down in the north, I have proposed a simple, and over the next 30 years, testable hypothesis. And I dont need
billions of dollars of grant money or computer modeling to prove it. All I need , and others of good will out there, is to objectively and rationally watch what happens when the mechanism(s)
that I believe have caused this, reverse, and are MEASURED WITHOUT ANY READJUSTMENT in a constant fashion by an objective method, which we did not have before, when the PDO was cold, we only started when it turned warm. The theory is simple… A warm PDO, then AMO, results in the appearance of global warming because of the response on the land masses, when in reality it is a distortion north of the warmth. And warming dry air over land takes much less energy than forcing an oceanic response. A look at the PDO, AMO values over the past 60 years reveals nearly any changes in those figures overall, and the problem
may indeed be that the current distortion of warming may be masking a cooling that is going on, that would put us in far worse shape than if there is warming. But we will know all this by 2030. In fact I think you should see it now. I made a forecast
for global temps returning to normal or a bit below by March of 2011. I made this back when the earths temp was in the el nino spike. One can simply watch the antics
of the global temps in response to the smaller scale enso movements and then
understand why the large multi-decadal movements should lead to this. The threat
here is that if correct, then the whole thing would be as Bill Gray has been saying for years, a hoax and a scam. But here is all I ask. lets let it play out. After all if the models are right, then we should quickly see a jump in temp back to their forecast
from 20 years ago. The little known fact is while this decade has been warm, it has
essentially flattened out from the rise that would have been a natural response to the phenomena I have pointed out. If there was a co2 induced tipping point, rather than a “governor” on the earths thermostat caused by the theory the total energy
IS NOT CHANGING and temperature is a measure of energy, then temps would have responded to the higher levels that the IPCC forecast had them.
My point is this: It was high tide, but the tide is going out. I am not afraid of the answer, and simple logic and respect for nature and what has done, and can do, will
prove that once again mans folly in thinking he can control what he did not create.
And for those that scream and holler at all this, let me ask you..who are you going to believe, someone else, or your own “lying eyes” IT IS BEFUDDLING TO ME that we now have an OBJECTIVE WAY of measuring all this… NO READJUSTING temps,
no proxy this or that… we have the satellite measurements at the end of the last cold PDO, 1978 and beyond. If you are right, you have nothing to fear, the temps will
continue up. But you at least have the way to watch. Lets give the cold PDO and AMO ( heck I didnt even bring up solar cycles, volcanoes, etc) their chance. The fact is that the true DENIERS out there simply want to deny the chance for a level playing field objective test. And the reasons, I believe, are not about getting the right answer, but force feeding a predetermined answer.
If you are right, then you will carry the day anyway. Look at this as a bowl game
it will prove that you should have the title.
as always.. cheers to all

Apparently, ESF_Junior has discovered the “Gas-station-localization-principle! 🙂
As this prediction exercise likely will have oodles of contenders in the end, I’ll skip the GSLP”method” and follow my “gut feeling”. I can go on record for a 2001 september minimum of 5.3Mill km2.
@MattN.
It is definitely interesting to watch the current AMSU development, but I think we should follow the situation for a while before putting too much emphasis on short time data.
I have however also looked AMSU for a while, and find the tendency of relative cooling of the troposphere/lower atmosphere and simultaneous relative “warming” of the stratosphere to be very interesting.
A couple of aspects (and I would appreciate corrections if I have misunderstood, and of course supplements).
1) The “heating” of the stratosphere means that the usual causal principle of GHG blocking IR back-radiation, has either been reduced (does BTW not fit with the CO2-trend”) or been offset by internal (unknown?) processes, or external forcings (external radiation?), or a combination of these.
2) A “hotter” stratosphere could possibly also signify a stronger back-radiation from earth AND the atmosphere, implicatinog that the earth’s radiative imbalance have been reduced, and may even reverse. (Anyone with model or real-world numbers for this?).
Cassanders
In Cod we trust

Don´t forget M.Vukcevic temperature´s relation with GMF. Nature, as common sense shows, does not have water thight compartments between electromagnetic frequencies, it continuously change from one to the other. It is unexplainable to think exlusively in LWR(IR)-Temperatures, as our daily experience, beginning early in the morning, when preparing our breakfast we make use of power to obtain heat.
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/AT-GMF.gif
Thus, also, only a soup of letters, a concoction of holy names and tags make us think there are water tight compartments among supposed different areas of physics (physis=nature):
Thus, the Max Planck equation united all fields as the current Power equation it is also a unified field equation, though with changed “characters” and “sacred units”:Joules in the first case, watts in the second. This way nobody knows they are speaking the Same Language= The Babylon confusion, where everyone tries to weight up their prefered “angel”.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/42482741/Unified-Field-Explained-9

Blade says:
“Ironically like its evil relatives Communism/Marxism/Fascism/Socialism/Liberalism, the miserable relentless cold advances on: 2 steps forward – 1 step back.”
Liberalsim? Are you sure? I would imagine Nick Clegg would be rather unhappy at being classed in the same group as the others. I would imagine that if the LibDems are in there, more radical political parties such as the Tea party and Republicans should also be included. I suspect though that politics in the USA will always be a mystery to the moderate voters of Europe.
Snowing here in the UK, snow on Snowdonia much earlier than usual. Personally I blame David Cameron. The weather was much better and warmer under labour.