Final 2010 Arctic Sea Ice Summary – Sea Ice News #30

UPDATE: Peter Sinclair shows his true crock colors, and refuses to correct his errors in “crock of the week” even after they’ve been clearly pointed out. Some “journalist”, see update screencap posted below. -Anthony

I’m a bit late in getting this posted, as I’ve had a number of distractions the past week. But here it is, the post mortem report on 2010 Arctic Sea ice minimum. Of course the most interesting aspect is how well did the forecasts from the various scientists and groups do at predicting the 2010 minimum? This graph from the SEARCH report (in entirety below) sums it up pretty well:

click for a larger image - red dashed line represents the 2010 minimum

The yellow highlight shows that Steve Goddard, who supplied sea ice commentary for WUWT over the past year before starting his own blog here, did better than many of the scientists and groups who made forecasts submitted to Study of Environmental ARctic CHange (SEARCH). His forecast at 5.1 million square kilometers (as seen in the SEARCH graph above) wasn’t that far off, was in the middle of the pack, and certainly better than the other ends of the forecast spectrum.

Forecasting is always a risk, and the closer you get to the target point, the better your skill will be. Forecasts made further out always have a greater chance of missing the mark, such as this one by NSIDC’s Dr. Mark Serreze did on Climate Progress on May 24, 2010:

As Arctic sea ice shrinks faster than 2007, NSIDC director Serreze says, “I think it’s quite possible” we could “break another record this year.”

Well, no new record was set, and sea ice certainly didn’t go higher than 2009 as we talked about here, so there were errors on both sides.The ground truth nature provided was in the middle.

Of course, nobody likes to admit such errors, in fact it seems that some will go to great lengths to hide them by projecting, such as video hack turned Al Gore trained environmentalist “Greenman3610” aka Peter Sinclair.  He videocasts from his home studio with sophisticated Mac slide show effects producing a YouTube feature called “Climate Denial Crock of the Week”. It’s a crock, there’s no doubting that, since he only shows one side of the 2010 sea ice forecast story, and focuses on a couple of words in a sentence for one WUWT blog post to prove his point. It’s hilarious for its sheer spinmastery, and a must watch for entertainment value:

The lead text posted by Greenman3610 starts with a false premise, and he carries that through the whole video.

In early summer 2010, the pseudo science blog Watts up with that informed it’s discriminating readers that this summer would decisively show that northern polar ice had ended a long term decline. They guaranteed it.

Now what’s hilarious about that spinmastery is the blog post he focused on, which was a two parter about Joe Bastardi’s AccuWeather sea ice report (which I summarized) followed by a technical summary written by Steve Goddard. You can read it here.

Greenman’s video opens with and focuses on a sentence and three words of ebullience from Goddard in that post, “you bet ya”, along with making the false claim of “They guaranteed it“.

Um, well, sadly no. We didn’t say “guarantee” nor that the long term trend would reverse, that’s your spinning words. Search that WUWT article for the word guarantee or variances of it and you won’t find it. In fact you won’t find any reference to a “guarantee” for a sea ice forecast anywhere on WUWT. But you will find a caveat using the word guarantee from Sea Ice News #8 on June 6th, 2010

Conclusion : Based on current ice thickness, we should expect September extent/area to come in near the top of the JAXA rankings (near 2003 and 2006.) However, unusual weather conditions like those from the summer of 2007 could dramatically change this. There is no guarantee, because weather is very variable.

And also on June 3rd in a post called “The Undeath Spiral” Goddard uses the word again:

Anyone betting on the minimum extent needs to recognize that summer weather can dramatically effect the behaviour of the ice. The fact that the ice is thicker now is no guarantee that it won’t shrink substantially if the summer turns out to be very warm, windy or sunny. Joe Bastardi believes that it will be a warm summer in the Arctic. I’m not a weather forecaster and won’t make any weather predictions.

Yup, weather during late melt season is a big factor, even NSIDC’s Dr. Walt Meir points that out in his guest post here, wind and weather is a big factor. He wrote:

NSIDC’s June estimate was too high compared to what actually happened.

First, when the thicker, older ice is in broken up floes, it is more easily “attacked” on all sides by the ocean heat and can potentially be melted completely. Second, the less consolidated ice is more easily pushed around by the ice and more susceptible to winds pushing the ice together – in other words, the effect of the wind is amplified. I think this is a major reason why a lot of the forecasts were too high.

To be sure, some of this could be attributed to luck, because there is always the wildcard of what the weather will do over the summer.

Certainly at that time of the WUWT post that Greenman focuses on it looked like 2010 would come out a bit ahead of 2009. But even though NSIDC’s forecasts were also initially too high (so was WUWT’s) and NSIDC director Serreze goes out on a limb in May and says:

As Arctic sea ice shrinks faster than 2007, NSIDC director Serreze says, “I think it’s quite possible” we could “break another record this year.”

You won’t see either of those NSIDC forecasts that didn’t come true mentioned in Peter Sinclair’s “crock” video, as they don’t fit his narrative of denigration. But you will hear that tired old Serreze maxim of “death spiral“.

And finally, here’s the complete SEARCH forecast summary report that Peter Sinclair and his merry band of crockers don’t want you to see, even though it has some nice “crock ready” graphics in it. He doesn’t want to let slip that some other scientists did worse in sea ice forecasts than what was posted here on WUWT, and he certainly doesn’t want to let slip that NSIDC’ Dr. Walt Meir posts here (and gets accolades) and that their forecasts were initially high too. No, can’t have that, it would upset the faithful and just wouldn’t be good television. 😉

But I suppose I’m grateful for all the attention, after all, if WUWT wasn’t the leading blog on climate with traffic that in a single day dwarfs the number of total views that Greenman gets on his videos in their life cycle, I wouldn’t be the big target. The fact that it irritates him enough to do a hit piece pleases me greatly.

But, I invite readers to compare facts from the video to what is presnted above and below. I also invite other skeptical bloggers to repost this in entirety on their own blogs.

UPDATE: Here’s the comments from “Greenman3610” aka Peter Sinclair on YouTube after being informed of the rebuttal:

It seems he’s enjoying the traffic WUWT sent, but is uninterested in correcting the errors pointed out. – Anthony

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

From SEARCH (November 12th, 2010)

INTRODUCTION

A request was sent to the contributors of the 2010 SEARCH Sea Ice Outlook to summarize the 2010 arctic sea ice season. We asked:

  • What were the main factors driving the 2010 summer sea ice?
  • What additional data would be useful for improving future Outlooks?
  • What are the implications for future arctic sea ice?

We appreciate the contribution by all participants and reviewers who made the 2010 Outlook effort a continued success. The Sea Ice Outlook provides a forum for researchers to evaluate their understanding of the state of arctic sea ice and for the community to jointly assess a range of factors that contribute to arctic summer sea ice minima. The Sea Ice Outlook is not a formal consensus forecast or prediction for arctic sea ice extent, nor is it intended as a replacement for existing efforts or centers with operational responsibility. Additional background material about the Outlook effort can be found on the background page.

SUMMARY

The sea ice monthly extent for September 2010 was 4.9 million square kilometers, based on National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC) estimates. This was the third lowest behind 2008 (4.7 million square kilometers) and 2007 (4.3 square kilometers). It should be noted that the NSIDC value is a monthly averaged estimate and it is dependent on a particular passive microwave algorithm for sea ice. Other satellites, composites, or passive microwave analyses will have slightly different numbers. A review of the differences amongst algorithms and sensors is discussed in a brief report by the Climate and Cryosphere Project’s (CliC, http://www.climate-cryosphere.org/en/) Arctic Sea Ice Working Group (also available in the “additional information” section at the bottom of this page). The point here is not which is the “correct” value, but to acknowledge that there will be understandable differences between estimates. We take the NSIDC value as the “operational definition.”

It is also important to note that although recent sea ice values have not reached the extreme minimum of 2007, the sea ice minimum has remained well below the long-term “norm” (Figure 1). This may imply that in the present warmer climate conditions, September ice extents below 5 million square kilometers will become the norm.

Recent sea ice conditions during summer (NSIDC).

Figure 1. Recent sea ice conditions during summer (NSIDC). Figure is based on daily arctic sea ice extent from passive microwave satellite data (SSM/I). The solid gray line indicates average extent from 1979 to 2000. (National Snow and Ice Data Center)

Outlook estimates for September 2010 based on May data had a mean value of 5.0 million square kilometers compared to the observed minimum of 4.9 million square kilometers (Figure 2a). Quartile values were 4.7 and 5.4 million square kilometers. Outlook estimates based on June data had a mean value of 4.8 million square kilometers and Quartile values were 4.2 and 5.4 million square kilometers (Figure 2b). The August report (based on July data, Figure 2c) gave a mean of 4.9 million square kilometers, with Quartile values of 4.6 and 5.4 million square kilometers. The drop in estimate values between the two first Outlooks reflected in part record ice loss rates observed in June. However, ice loss slowed substantially in July and Outlook projections based on July data increased to 4.9 million square kilometers. This illustrates the importance of the summer circulation pattern on the ice cover, and provides a limitation on accuracy of estimates made earlier in the season.

Figure 2a. Distributions of Outlook estimates for September 2010

Figure 2a. Distributions of Outlook estimates for September 2010 arctic sea ice extent based on May data.

Figure 2b. Distributions of Outlook estimates for September 2010

Figure 2b. Distributions of Outlook estimates for September 2010 arctic sea ice extent based on June data.

Figure 2c. Distributions of Outlook estimates for September 2010. Observed September minimum sea ice extent denoted by the red dashed line.

Figure 2c. Distributions of Outlook estimates for September 2010 arctic sea ice extent based on July data. Observed September minimum sea ice extent denoted by the red dashed line.

SUMMER SEA ICE AND METEOROLOGICAL CONDITIONS

Figure 3 is a sea ice analysis combined with shipboard observations for the end of summer 2010 provided by Jenny Hutchings. Figure 4 is a sea ice age plot for the end of September provide by Jim Maslanik. While the 2010 melt season started with more multi-year ice (MYI) in the Beaufort and Chukchi seas than seen in recent years and an overall greater percentage of MYI arctic-wide, by the end of August nearly all of this MYI had melted out or ice concentration had fallen below 40%. In the Chukchi Sea, none of the ice greater than two years of age remained, and 97% of the second-year ice was gone. In the East Siberian Sea, there was a 65% reduction in the amount of second-year ice between the end of April and the end of August. A remarkable feature that was captured by satellite imagery was a corridor of low ice concentrations that allowed the Chinese vessel Xuelong, an icebreaker with a low ice class, to reach above 88˚N of latitude. Howell and colleagues recorded open water conditions in the Northwest Passage.

Figure 3. In situ observations for the end of summer 2010

Figure 3. In situ observations for the end of summer 2010 (J. Hutchings, International Arctic Research Center; graphics assistance by K. Creek, ARCUS).

Figure 4. Synthetic sea ice age plot (J. Maslanik, University of Colorado).

Figure 4. Synthetic sea ice age plot (J. Maslanik, University of Colorado).

Several contributors, including Walt Meier and Hiroki Shibata, note that there was considerable sea ice present at the end of the spring season. NSIDC reported that the 2010 seasonal sea ice maximum was quite late (31 March compared to the climatological date of 26 February) and the total maximum ice extent approached the climatological mean. This increase was dominated by higher than normal ice extent in the Bering Sea, while ice extent remained below normal elsewhere. The increase in the Bering Sea was perhaps related to the strong negative Arctic Oscillation (AO)/North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO) pattern of winter 2009-2010. It was strongly negative in December and February; the February value was the third lowest NAO in160 years, and strong winds in the Bering Sea led to new ice formation. Community-based observations and field data for the Bering Sea ice cover summarized in the Sea Ice for Walrus Outlook (SIWO) indicate that even though Bering Sea ice was extensive, it was thinner than in past decades and hence susceptible to rapid retreat. Thus, after the winter maximum, pan-arctic ice extent quickly declined, with record daily average ice loss rates for the Arctic as a whole in May and June, and a new record low ice extent for June. This rapid rate of decline likely reflects a combination of thin ice and an atmospheric circulation pattern favoring ice loss. Julienne Stroeve (personal communication) noted that the total loss of sea ice area for 2010 was actually greater than the loss in 2007, based on a greater starting amount in 2010.

An important meteorological pattern is that the summers of the last four years have been dominated by the Arctic Dipole Anomoly (DA) atmospheric climate pattern. This pattern results in high sea level pressure on one side of the Arctic Basin (in this case North America) and low sea level pressure on the other. Because winds tend to blow parallel to lines of constant pressure, this provides sea ice advection generally poleward from the Bering Strait region. These winds also pick up heat and moisture from open water areas in the southern arctic (Chukchi region), transport it northward, and release the heat there. The normal sea level pressure climatology for the summer Arctic has been a flat field or a weak monthly mean low pressure center over the Arctic. In 2007 the DA was present all summer and contributed to record low sea ice conditions. In 2009 the DA was strong in June and July, suggesting a near record sea ice loss for that year, but by August the DA pressure pattern was replaced by the more normal low pressure center. In 2010 the summer started with a strong DA pattern in June, contributing to rapid sea ice loss (see Figure 1). However, the DA was replaced by a low pressure pattern in July (Figure 5), slowing down the rate of summer sea ice loss. But a major surprise for 2010 was that the DA pattern returned in August (Figure 6). We also saw continued above-normal ocean temperatures in ice-free regions at the end of summer (Figure 7).

Figure 5. Arctic sea level pressure pattern during July 2010.

Figure 5. Arctic sea level pressure pattern during July 2010.

Figure 6. Sea level pressure pattern for the Arctic

Figure 6. Sea level pressure pattern for the Arctic showing the return of the Arctic Dipole pressure pattern in August 2010.

The maps show average sea surface temperatures and anomalies for August 2007.

Figure 7. This summer, sea surface temperatures were higher than average, but lower than in the last three years. The maps above show average sea surface temperatures and anomalies for August 2007 to 2010. (W. Ermold and M. Steele, University of Washington)

CONCLUSIONS AND LESSONS

The mean estimates for the 2010 September Sea Ice Outlook based on May, June, and July data were close to the observed value with a rather small quartile distribution (as a measure of deviation from the mean). Most investigators, using a variety of methods, settled on a value slightly below 5.0 million square kilometers. This may represent an interim (or potentially longer-term) state for an Arctic that is now dominated by first-year sea ice.

Thickness surveys and drifting buoys that are part of the Arctic Observing Network (AON) suggest that much of the growth of first-year sea ice in the Pacific sector approaches an end-of-season thickness of around 1.7 m, independent of the starting time of freeze-up in the fall (H. Eicken, personal communication). As one goes further north toward the North Pole, the length of the shortwave radiation season is shortened with less ability to melt out multi-year sea ice (D. Perovich, personal communication). Could the last four years be a plateau state? What would it take to have another major sea ice loss down to a level of 3.5-4.0 million square kilometers? In regards to the first question, J. Stroeve (personal communication) notes that in the present warmer climate state, the tendency for a negative AO winter pattern to promote increased transport of ice into the western Beaufort/Chukchi seas—a pattern that historically has helped to reduce summer ice loss—actually enhances summer ice loss.

Another wild card is the presence of the Arctic Dipole pressure pattern in summer. It seems like it is a necessary feature to maintain current summer sea ice conditions. Yet the reason for its continued year-to-year presence in unknown. Is a return to more climatological flat summer sea level pressure patterns more probable than a continuation of the DA pattern?



Advertisements

  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of
Steeptown

Who is Wilson who gets it so wrong and changes his forecast from 1m sq km to 2.5m sq km between the July and August reports?

Thrasher

That hack piece by Sinclair. The worst part is he sounds so arrogant about the whole piece as if he knows a slight tick down in ice in 2010 means that we are right back on track for the “death spiral”…and he actually uses that word!!! I wonder what he will say if it goes back up in 2011?
The arrogance and “superiority complex” in that video is disgusting. As if someone could ever question a death spiral comment back in 2007.
I’m not much to come conclusions about an author based on a single piece, but I can safely say based on that one piece, he is about as bad as it comes it comes when talking about the “the science is settled” concept of the argument.
The continued ignorance about ocean cycles in this whole thing is pretty fascinating to me. The IPCC has continued to reject ocean cycles as any significant impact but yet we see the evidence mounting on it. It might not affect the sea ice until we get further into the -PDO and AMO cycles, but the obsession with the last 30 years is pretty striking. That’s why arctic sea ice is such a huge hit, because the reliable data for it, unlike global temp data, only goes back to 1979. Perfectly covers the warm phase of the Pacific with the Atlantic warm phase spiking near the end of the Pacific warm phase.

Stefan

Another good day for scientific scepticism.
Scientific scepticism –
Because there’s more to life than carbon

Renk

Anthony,
For the record, on February 9 you wrote
Steven Goddard writes below that he agrees with the prediction I made in late 2009 that we’d see another 500,000 km2 of Arctic sea ice recovery in 2010.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/02/09/prediction-arctic-ice-will-continue-to-recover-this-summer/
That would set Goddard’s original prediction at 5.7 Mkm2.
His another prediction was 5.5 Mkm2:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/06/14/wuwt-arctic-sea-ice-news-9/#comment-410418
As the ice melted, Goddard kept revising his prediciton downwards…
REPLY: As did NSIDC from their initial high values, that’s the section on forecast skill I alluded to. There’s no law that said you can’t change the forecast as you get closer to the target and skill improves. All the entrees in the forecasts submitted to SEARCH were revised with time. For example Wilson’s which went up more than double as he got closer.
NOAA does this with weather forecasts too, weather forecasts a week out are revised as they get closer to the day. Heck, sometimes they even revise them the same day! It’s folly for anyone to expect a weather forecast or an ice forecast to stay static as more/better information presents itself. – Anthony

R. de Haan

I wouldn’t call Steve Goddard’s prediction “Public”.
A better description would be to call it “Realistic” or better “WUWT REALISTIC”
With all the published articles at WUWT the regular visitor automatically gets this “realistic feel and insight” that is based on unbiased, honest and clear reporting.
Thanks.

John Marshall

Adm. Titley stated that the sea ice has never been thinner for several thousand years!
Wrong Adm. Sea ice was documented as non existent in the polar region by photographs of three submarines, two from the US Navy and one Royal Navy, at the north pole in 1959 in clear water. Perhaps he has lost these pictures.
The Medieval Warm Period, when Greenland was actually green and settled by the Vikings. They stayed for a couple of hundred years as it got too cold to grow wheat for food. There was little sea ice then because temperatures were up to 5 degrees warmer than today.
We have 30 years of real time data for Arctic sea ice and to make a correct judgment of what will happen in future years needs a thousand years of data. We do not have this so unfortunately rely on models to give the answer. Models do not work for a chaotic system which climate most certainly is.

This is important information. I notice the comment:
“It is also important to note that although recent sea ice values have not reached the extreme minimum of 2007, the sea ice minimum has remained well below the long-term “norm” (Figure 1). This may imply that in the present warmer climate conditions, September ice extents below 5 million square kilometers will become the norm.and supports the ongoing cooling view.”
The “This may imply… ” suggestion seems to be premature. One could surely equally argue that what we are seeing is a slow return to normal. There are not enough years of observation to draw conclusions.
Of course it can also be dangerous to draw conclusions about the coming winter from early winter blasts now hitting Britain + Europe but the fact these are a colder spell than our WeatherAction long range forecast first suggested may be significant for forecasting winter in Europe and in USA.
For some comments on this + Sponsor news of WeatherAction possible free PUBLIC ESSENCE OF WINTER summary forecasts for Britain, Ireland Europe and maybe USA please see:
http://bit.ly/a6lNCA

morgo

the problem is all climate scientists worry about is where there next grant will come from thay don,t give a stuff what you and me think if we don,t watch out the western world will fall and be come tomato heads all red though and through

Robinson

Err, what’s up with Wilson? Epic Fail!

keep in mind that while I forecasted a warm summer in the arctic, the forecast I make
is for NORTH of the arctic Circle. I was not forecasting for exclusively the area north of 80 north. I think we will find that it was a warm summer overall north of the circle, but we had a nice is cube in the middle! In addition the sea ice forecast I made was for a min between 2008 and 2009, after a rapid spring melt, a leveling off, which is close to where it wound up. Remember I have been debating publicly and visibly the death spiral people on this matter. 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. Book it now
Anthony.. cheers and Happy Thanksgiving JB

Kevin MacDonald

“focuses on a couple of words in a sentence… to prove his point. It’s hilarious for its sheer spinmastery”
That was my point way back here:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/09/27/skeptical-science-john-cook-embarrassing-himself/#more-25417
You didn’t think it a valid criticism when it was you doing the spinning, has something changed since then or have you always been a hypocrite?

How are the alarmists allowed to drive the hysteria over the arctic by constantly cherry picking the single day summer minimum as an example of the ice coverage year round? Their scare tactics have confused the average person to believe that there will be no ice ever in the arctic again. The average person is not even aware that the ice coverage fluctuates over the season and comes back every winter,
AMSR-E Arctic Sea Ice September 2009 to March 2010
We are missing the main argument with the public. The average person believes the arctic ice is the same amount year round and now due to climate change has shrunk permanently (year round) to the single day summer minimum sea ice extent because this is all they are shown pictures of. If this key fact is not communicated more effectively, arguing the rest is just speaking to the choir.

samspade10

“In early summer 2010, the pseudo science blog Watts up with that informed it’s discriminating readers that this summer would decisively show that northern polar ice had ended a long term decline.
They guaranteed it.”

Discriminating enough to know the difference between “it’s” and “its” at least.

Golf Charley

Apologies for repetition on this site but……
HMS Investigator was sent by the UK to find survivors from a previous expedition to find the North West Passage.
The sailing vessel was caught in ice and ultimately sank, in 1853.
In 2010, during “near record” low levels of arctic ice, the wreck was found.
So, how did she get there in 1853? It is not possible, according to the experts, that she simply sailed there through ice free waters.

An Inquirer

Two comments and a question.
1) The SEARCH graph presents monthly numbers. Much of the discussion during the summer was about the absolute minimum; so to compare the two would be like comparing apples to apple pie.
2) In my memory, Steve Goddard did use something like “guarentee” when he promised that the steep decline would stop once Hudson Bay melted. (He was right.)
QUESTION: What forecast was based on PIOMASS? Was it Meier, et al?

Don B

The polar bears have left Churchill to go out on the ice, according to Polar Bear Alley.
http://www.polarbearalley.com/index.html
But Cryosphere Today shows no ice on Hudson Bay. What up with that?

pinkman3610

Peter Sinclair even even called WUWT an “anti science” blog in one of his older videos. After I wrote on his profile and quoted wikipedia about WUWT’s successful corrections to (according to him settled, “undeniable” and untouchable) climate science I asked what “greenman’s” contributions to the science were. I guess that’s one of the reasons he moved to the “pseudo science” term in his newest video, which I by the way think to be his least painful to watch piece of propaganda to date…

Frank K.

As Arctic sea ice shrinks faster than 2007, NSIDC director Serreze says, “I think it’s quite possible” we could “break another record this year.”
Actually Mark “The Acrtic is Screaming” Serreze is the one sounding like a “broken record”…

mattweezer

Peter Sinclair sounds like the guy who used to help “They Might Be Giants” with their audio podcasts. Every time I hear his voice I keep expecting him to start naming off different varieties of turtles and their associated calls. If only he could substitute “Ice Ice Baby” for a TMBG song and put it on a podcast in the comedy section, then it would be like old times. I’m thinking “Particle Man” at the moment.

Roger Knights

Anthony says:
“how well did the forecasts from the various scientists and groups do at predicting the 2010 minimum?”

But the caption over the chart says “average minimum.” Is it talking about a different number?

MattN

Question: Who is Wilson, and [/snip] was he smoking while making his predictions? That guys could not have been any more incorrect. He really predicted 1.0M km^2??? Laughable…

[Vulgar acronyms representing extremely vulgar words are still vulgarity … bl57~mod]

trbixler

I loved the scale change of percent to percent not area to area. Of course he would not have chosen percent change of Arctic and Antarctic total ice. Spin Spin Spin now where where those subs?

Marcos

why isnt the ‘1979-2007 average’ the ‘1979-2009 average’?

Pamela Gray

It feels like the Arctic Circle has suddenly moved South! Minus 13 tonight followed by a day in the Sun at a scorching 9. This is the kind of Arctic blast, that if extended, freezes fresh water rivers from the bottom up and builds a nice pretty dam in front of all that water. As the blocked water builds and stands there, it also begins to freeze. A small stream thusly dammed up builds quite a large frozen lake behind it. Imagine a bigger river. In several states. Along and above the 45th parallel.

trbixler says: November 23, 2010 at 6:03 am
“I loved the scale change of percent to percent not area to area”.
Yes, the slight of hand that Sinclair uses to dismiss Antarctic Sea Ice is a good example of the disingenuousness of the Warmists. By focusing the percentage change in Antarctic Sea Ice, Sinclair avoids addressing the fact that Antarctic Sea Ice Extent is currently well above average:
http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/daily_images/S_stddev_timeseries.png
When sea ice is viewed holistically, i.e. Global Sea Ice Area, things just don’t look very scary:
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/global.daily.ice.area.withtrend.jpg

Fernando

In fact we have a lot of data which are hunting a theory.
Congratulations, Steve Goddard.
Well, certainly Steve has generated a smaller amount of CO2 in comparison to the large and very expensive team of scientists.
WUWT in the campaign to reduce emissions.

mkelly

I used to comment on Mr. Sinclair’s videos at LittleGreenFootballs blog, but have been expugned. Very free speech of him, but it is his blog. Mr. Sinclair’s vids need to be challenged every time on every point. As was pointed out this past summer he plays fast and loose with everything. His prior video showing “evidence” that CO2 warms due to IR in plastic bottles was a joke.

Phil.

Don B says:
November 23, 2010 at 5:07 am
The polar bears have left Churchill to go out on the ice, according to Polar Bear Alley.
http://www.polarbearalley.com/index.html
But Cryosphere Today shows no ice on Hudson Bay. What up with that?

CT does show near shore ice on Hudson Bay near Churchill.
The Canadian Ice Service also reports a late start to the ice on the bay:
http://ice-glaces.ec.gc.ca/prods/FECN15CWIS/20101116000000_FECN15CWIS_0005295169.txt
Note what ‘Polarbear alley’ says:
“Don’t get me wrong, there is still a pitiful amount of ice on Hudson Bay but near Churchill the ice is building quickly and the bears should leave soon – they really only need a few miles of ice to get out there… and really their peak hunting season does not occur until spring anyway. Everything is fine around Churchill, northwest Hudson Bay bears though might be a little worried…”

Phil.

Roger Knights says:
November 23, 2010 at 5:27 am
Anthony says:
“how well did the forecasts from the various scientists and groups do at predicting the 2010 minimum?”
But the caption over the chart says “average minimum.” Is it talking about a different number?

The SEARCH program is based on the average for September not the absolute minimum.

wobble

Should we expect a nice recovery this summer due to the thicker ice? You bet ya.

The “You bet ya” was very clearly referring to what should be EXPECTED – not what should actually occur.
Sinclair is being extremely disingenuous.

Doug Badgero

Arctic sea ice as evidence for, or against, CAGW is a dubious proposition at best.

ge0050

What if the artic was ice free 6 months of the year, and open for shipping?
What if the Great Lakes didn’t freeze in winter, and remained ice-free all year round?
What if the growing season in North America moved 500 miles furhter north, opening up vast areas of land that are currently unsuitable for agriculture?
What if the oceans rose .7 meters and flooded out all the millionaires and billionaires that own waterfront property?
Rather than being a problem, this seems like a great opportunity for economic growth. Changes in rainfall patterns we can solve through irrigation, so long as the rivers and lakes aren’t frozen. As California and Florida have shown, heat is a positive factor for crop growth.

Jeff T

Just when (and where) did Steve Goddard predict a minimum ice extent of 5.1 million square kilometers? His June 28th forecast in Sea Ice News #11 was 5.5. On August 29th, in Sea Ice News #20, he wrote “It continues to look like my June forecast will be close to correct…”

Don B

Phil quotes Polar Bear Alley from 11/19, but the most recent posting says the ice extends as far out as the eye can see, and most of the bears are gone.
On earlier posts, the comment is on the aerial survey which found the bears in good shape, and found that bears had killed so many seals at the shore they couldn’t eat them all right then.

pat

That is rather humorous. Peter Sinclair is a full-throated alarmist. Screaming about rising sea levels, drought, food shortages, you name it. His sense of panic is akin to a two year old’s temper tantrum: reasonless but nevertheless entertaining.

Chris B

An explanation from the “Crock Pot” as to why so many persons believe the hype and hubris of “Climate Disruption”.
This honest admission should be taken seriously.
[ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-AkraoSqzeE ]

That shows that everyday all agencies “scientists” should visit WUWT before making any public forecasts.

HMS Investigator was sent by the UK to find survivors from a previous expedition to find the North West Passage.
The sailing vessel was caught in ice and ultimately sank, in 1853.
In 2010, during “near record” low levels of arctic ice, the wreck was found.
So, how did she get there in 1853? It is not possible, according to the experts, that she simply sailed there through ice free waters.

The answer is in your question. She was frozen in to the ice and ultimately sank. While frozen in to the ice, the pack carried it around to places that would otherwise have been inaccessible. The ice pack does move and anything on it, or frozen in to it, gets carried along.
Nansen, after building a ship that could take the force of the ice pack, took advantage of that for his 1893-1896 Arctic scientific expedition. Froze the ship in to the pack and continued observations.

An Inquirer

Comment to Renk @ November 23, 2010 at 1:34 am:
By your logic, the graph should have included a forecast from Mark Serreze at 4.2 million. And in three years, we should include the forecast from the scientists who forecasted 0.

Hey Anthony it time to add a prediction page!
With predictions every month starting in january.

D. King

Chris B says:
November 23, 2010 at 8:30 am
I knew it. They live in a world governed by SiFi clips.

Scott

Steven Mosher says:
November 23, 2010 at 9:04 am

Hey Anthony it time to add a prediction page!
With predictions every month starting in january.

Absolutely agreed…it’d motivate me to get my multivariate Arctic predictor up and running!
-Scott

CodeTech

I’ve never been a fan of this whole “prediction” thing. Someone is more likely to hit the number by luck than anything, and there’s no purpose to that. If you want lottery numbers, do you ask a former lottery winner? If so, that would imply that you believe the lottery winner has a “method”, which they don’t.
Now, a forecast with some reasoning behind it, that’s a different thing. Analyzing trends, following PDO and AMO cycles, etc. would qualify as reasoning. Simply laying down $50 on a guess is pointless, and would probably be better spent on said lottery.
Last night here (Calgary) we reached an overnight low of about -29C, which is COLD. 10 days ago we were trending above average. Unfortunately, in La Nina years we are subject to colder winters, since there is less energy pushing Pacific heat over the mountains, which allows cold northern air to slump down along the Rockies. It would not have been too difficult to predict this cold with a bit of research. We also have a bit more snow on the ground than we usually do this time of year.
But hey, both my local weather, the Arctic, the Antarctic, in fact the entire planet is within norms. There is nothing unusual going on, no matter how much some people seem to want there to be. All is within the normal range of variability. If you don’t agree, let’s see your proof, because I’ve been looking for it and it does not exist. Guesses don’t count.

TomRude

Come on Sinclair works in tandem with desmogblog Hoggan’s mafia… what to expect there? Totalitarism at work.

the_Butcher
Vince Causey

Started watching the video, but gave up after rear admiral Titler’s testimony. It was probably the statement about the sea ice extent now being worse than it has been for thousands of years, that did it for me. Did none of those congressmen ever ask where he sourced that information from, given that satellite coverage has only been in existence since 1979?
The graph at the begining was a hoot. I know they teach you in school to choose the scale to make the data fit on the whole page, but really! It made it looked like the summer ice extent was nearly at zero and that trend line! Sloped down at 45 degrees. Nice try Greenman, but I’d take a look at the cryosphere today plot. With the ‘y’ axis starting a zero, the ‘death spiral’ looks more like a crease on a page.
I was also amused at the way he categorised people. On the one hand there are ‘climate experts’ who talk about the ‘death spirals’, and on the other are the deniers. Nothing like a good impartial look at the science, and this was nothing like an impartial look. Oh silly me. I forgot it was a call to prayer for the faithfull. All that WUWT scepticism must have been making them shake.

Jeff

LOL,
Goddard stuck with his 5.5 prediction and never corrected it here. Even in the face of his prediction being busted he defended the 5.5 by saying he was withing 10% until it went past that marker and he was busted again. Finally, he just moved to another site. I’m sure he’s spouting off on how next year will start the recovery but I doubt he has put a number on next year’s minimum.