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:
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.
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.
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.
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).
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?
Oh geez Smokey, grow up.
Somehow I’m failing to see how stating that it was possible that we could have set a new low sea ice extent record is “hubris”. Particularly since it did indeed come quite close to a record, as it does virtually every year nowadays.
I do think it’s hubris to constantly proclaim how accurate your predictions are turning out to be….until they turn out to be very inaccurate and you’re forced to change them rather dramatically at the eleventh hour. And I think it’s rather silly to then applaud this individual’s extremely inaccurate predictions.
What I would expect after all the gloating about his terrific predictions would be an admission that as it turned out, they were quite far off. I wouldn’t be surprised if this individual stayed quiet on the subject – nobody likes to admit they were wrong. But to rewrite history and applaud his predictions for their accuracy? That’s just silly.
Unfortunately people followed Goddard’s advice, bookmarked his predictions, and went back to check them. It’s tough to rewrite history in the internet age.
dana1981,
Your clearly mistaken post above doesn’t surprise me, since you link your name to an unethically named blog: “‘Skeptical’ Science”. There is nothing skeptical about your fact-challenged alarmist echo chamber, which takes it on faith that CAGW is lurking right around the corner.
Contrary to your claims and accusations, I did not use the word “hubris.” Nor did I ever comment on the accuracy of my predictions as you state – for the simple reason that I have never made any predictions about sea ice at any time, either in this thread or in the past.
And of course I have never been “forced to change” my non-existent predictions “rather dramatically at the eleventh hour.”
I did not ‘gloat’ as you claimed, and I do not ‘rewrite history’ [as the alarmist crowd regularly does when massaging the temperature record]. And please show me where I’ve ever applauded anyone’s predictions. Take your time, I have all day. Or all week if you need it.
Like your other statements, your comment that I should “grow up” is based on ignorance. I’m 62, retired after a long career working on weather related instruments in an internationally known metrology lab. I don’t think that I am the one who has some growing up to do. [BTW, how old are you? And what are your qualifications, aside from being an inaccurate opinion writer?]
Run along back to ‘skeptical’ science, where reading comprehension is almost as low a priority as honest science. You will be right at home among the head-nodders there, who are not concerned with facts, but only with promoting the false alarm of their catastrophic AGW agenda.
DR. SERREZE ADMITS ERROR IN REDICTION
Dr. Serreze and the NSIDC may have predicted the same 5.5 million km2 level as Steven Goddard as part of the NSIDC June submission to ARCUS, depending on whether they thought their submission was for the September minimum or the average. The general description provided on the ARCUS site states that the estimates are for the September mean arctic sea ice extent rather than the minimum, although this is sometimes confusingly referred to as ” The mean prediction for the September minimum” rather than the mean for September (which is the lowest monthly average during the year).
http://www.arcus.org/search/seaiceoutlook/background.php
Steven Goddard stayed with the minimum estimate of 5.5 million km2 until August 29th even though he acknowledged that the daily level fell below his estimate.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/08/29/sea-ice-news-20/
Dr. Serreze and the NSIDC admitted the error of their initial estimate of the September extent in a pdf attached to the Search site:
“NSIDC 2010 Sea Ice Outlook Retrospective
By Walt Meier, Julienne Stroeve, Mark Serreze, and Ted Scambos
NSIDC’s initial estimate of 5.5 million square kilometers proved to be too high.”
Later in the pdf they also admitted their July and August estimates of the September extent were in error when they stated:
“In July and August, NSIDC used a new method to project the September ice extent via projecting the extent through the summer using average decline rates. This proved to be more accurate because as the summer melt season precedes the ariability in “meltable” ice declines with the setting sun. Our July and August estimate of 4.74 and 5.10 million square kilometers respectively were still too high compared to the daily minimum, due to a more rapid ice loss during August and September and a later than normal date of the minimum. This more rapid ice loss and late minimum was due to a combination of factors relating to atmospheric temperatures and circulation, ocean heat, and the thinner state of the ice cover.”
http://www.arcus.org/search/seaiceoutlook/2010/summary
Meier et al. (NSIDC)
Based on the above statement, the NSIDC may have been confused and thought they were predicting the September minimum rather than the September average since the September average was 4.9 million km2, which was higher than their July estimate, but lower than their August estimate, and the September minimum was 4.6 milion km2 which was below both estimates.
Smokey – my comment was deleted for some reason, but suffice it to say that after the first line with your name in it in my last comment, I was not talking to you.
Turns out I was being a bit generous to Goddard saying he was off by 50%. When he made his final prediction modification, sea ice extent was around 5.33 million sq. km (so his 5.5 million prediction had already been proven wrong). He revised the prediction to 5.1 million, and by the standard he was using (JAXA daily), it ended up at 4.81 million. So he was actually off by closer to 56%.
http://moregrumbinescience.blogspot.com/2010/11/verifying-forecasts-2.html
Peter Sinclair’s comments, however, pertained to Goddard’s claims that there was a good chance Arctic sea ice extent would set a record *maximum*, which Goodard said for several months before his first revision down to 5.5 million sq. km, followed by his second last-minute revision down to 5.1 million.
Maybe it wasn’t “guaranteed” – perhaps an incorrect choice of words from Peter Sinclair. But Goddard suggested for several months that sea ice extent would be near a record maximum, that his predictions were probably too conservative on the low side. Then he revised downward several times to reflect the reality that it was much closer to a record minimum than a maximum. The fact that Goddard had to make these revisions is not evidence of a good prediction, but rather of a very, very bad one. On that subject, Sinclair is correct.
Excellent post by Robert Grumbine.
He found this post to be a teaching moment – what not to do.
Call me paranoid, but I think Goddard was relieved from his duties over here at WUWT, right around the time when it was becoming blatantly clear that all his bragging was turning into a big fat egg on the face. His face and by proxy Anthony’s face.
That was a great tactical move by Anthony to all of a sudden, out of nowhere intervene in a discussion – where Goddard was being his usual silly self – and follow up by announcing that Goddard would not be writing for WUWT anymore. Just like that. Although Goddard had been his usual silly self many times in the preceding weeks and months, this wasn’t deemed a problem whatsoever. Remove the silly person when he isn’t performing a certain function and risks embarassing the entire enterprise. Well played.
Anthony, if you want to ditch the revisionist history and really praise someone, you might consider Jinlun Zhang, the guy who runs PIOMAS (remember that one?) and was very, very close from his first prediction submitted to SEARCH onwards. James Annan was close too on another blog taking early bets.
And how about answering some of Will Crump’s questions. When will Arctic sea ice be at the levels of the 1979-2001 level?
Günther Kirschbaum says:
“Call me paranoid, but I think Goddard was relieved from his duties over here at WUWT, right around the time when it was becoming blatantly clear that all his bragging was turning into a big fat egg on the face. His face and by proxy Anthony’s face.”
OK, you’re paranoid. And very confused. Steve Goddard had no official ‘duties,’ he was just a contributor like many others. Since Anthony stopped Steve Goddard’s posts, your comment is senseless. No surprise there.
Question: why the soul-consuming, visceral hatred of someone who simply had a different opinion than yours? Hatred seems to be the primary motivation of the global warming catastrophist crowd. Please explain why you need your hatred to keep you going. It’s because you’ve lost the argument, isn’t it?
So, Mr Smokey, it was just a coincidence that “Anthony stopped Goddard’s posts” right around the time when the IJIS trend line for 2010 kept diving lower and lower beneath the number Goddard had been thumping his chest for in the months prior (insulting R. Gates, Phil. and others whenever he could)? Do you really think that was a coincidence?
It just goes to show that some people can be fooled all of the time.
REPLY: Mr. Kirschbaum,
Enough of your conspiracy theories sir, take them elsewhere. Mr. Goddard had been wanting to break away and do his own blog for some time, and I had hoped (and asked) that he stay on until the end of the melt season and then startup a new blog. At the end of August, into Septemberyou may recall that I went through a family medical crisis, which I announced here.
Mr. Goddard’s posts required a fair amount of publishing prep work and post publishing moderation, partially due to chronic gripers like yourself, thus I didn’t feel it would work in my absence with the volunteer team. So it seemed the right time to have him do his own blog, which is what he wanted. I turned down a lot of posts submitted at WUWT he wanted to do, and as you’ll note he does a much wider variety now at his own blog than the focus on sea ice he did here at WUWT.
Tom Fuller chipped in to help fill the void, as did many others. Now that my crisis has passed, he’s moved on also. But you don’t seem to have any theories on that.
At that time my life was pretty much in upheaval, and life threatening issues faced my family. Quite frankly I don’t give a rats ass what you think occurred or didn’t during that time. My focus was on my family, not on sea ice, not on Steve Goddard, and most certainly not on what you and other people who have nothing better to do than gripe, might think about the changes then.
This will be the last discussion I have with you on the issue. – Anthony Watts
I can’t help but wonder what I said that warranted deleting my previous comment, when Smokey is allowed constant childish baiting in every one of his comments.
Yes Smokey, we’ve “lost” to a guy whose best argument is “you spelled ‘Serreze’ wrong”, followed by a fart joke. Your intellect is just too great for us to cope with.
Gunther Cherrytree,
If you believe I’m a fool, that is fine with me. Underestimate me all you want.
But you’re still dodging the question of why you are so consumed with your visceral hatred directed at Steve Goddard – who simply has a different point of view than yours. Hating someone with a different opinion is a hallmark of the climate alarmist crowd. And it isn’t pretty.
Smokey, I would have loved to continue our discussion, but Anthony won’t let me answer (except perhaps for this post). Shall I stoop so low and go off whining all around the blogosphere how my comments are being censored on WUWT?
REPLY:Mr. Kirschbaum, as I said, I’m not going to continue the conversation with you. You and “Neven” (who I think is actually you) “go off whining all around the blogosphere” on a daily basis anyway, so it won’t much really matter. You do what you do. Your intent is denigration of people you don’t like that have a different viewpoint, pure and simple.
You are welcome to comment on other threads at WUWT, on topic, and within site policy, but I’m not having any more discussion on how I run my blog, Steve’s new blog, and your conspiracy theories about it here on this thread. Asked and answered. You don’t like my answer, tough noogies. That’s what happened.
Got some science? Discuss that, got whining? Take it elsewhere. Got issues with Steve Goddard? Take it up with him at his blog here. – Anthony
No, I’m done with Steven Goddard. I’ll be keeping a close eye on your Arctic sea ice post though! Bending the truth is not an “opinion”. I’m looking forward to your next prediction of recovery. Who knows, maybe next summer you’ll get lucky.
In the meantime:
Mr. Watts:
When will there be a recovery to the 1979 – 2000 September average?
Come on, let’s get it on record. It’s easy attacking Serreze, Maslanik and other Polar experts, but you make yourself a tiny bit more credible when you show how it should be done and make some prediction that we can check. Not just the ‘look how the sea ice is recovering’ BS during winter (and most of the melting season and then change the forecast at the last moment, but still be 400,000 square km off, like WUWT ice expert Steven Goddard, but write afterwards how close he was after all, ie a real expert).
Will you be letting this one through, I wonder.
REPLY: Gunther/Nevin, you and Crump are a laugh riot. You lambaste me, then try to goad me into making a forecast that is outside the timeline of anything I have discussed here so far. Sorry, not playing your game, simply because you wish it. Your goal isn’t science, but to play gotcha on terms you and Crump create.
I find your demands juvenile and transparent. Your Facebook page photo seems to illustrate this well. And, you are done on this thread.
– Anthony
REPLY: Gunther/Nevin, you and Crump are a laugh riot. You lambaste me, then try to goad me into making a forecast that is outside the timeline of anything I have discussed here so far. Sorry, not playing your game, simply because you wish it. Your goal isn’t science, but to play gotcha on terms you and Crump create.
I find your demands juvenile and transparent. Your Facebook page photo seems to illustrate this well. And, you are done on this thread.
The facebook page appears to belong to a ‘Gunter’ not ‘Gunther’, speaking of juvenile I wondered why my response to Smokey didn’t make it?
Reply: Never saw a response, post again. -A
Dear Mr Watts,
I have just read your comment dated around 8.00 pm on the 29th regarding an illness in the family – kinda puts things in perspective. As I only get on-line from time to time, I did not catch the announcement on 31st August. I sincerely hope everything works out for the best.
As some of my posts have indicated, I happen to disagree with your position on AGW. However, the sole reason I have for being on this site is that I genuinely hope I am wrong. Nothing would give me greater pleasure than to discover some cogent argument (or preferably arguments) that would cause me to change my mind in this debate – again!
It is blindingly obvious that to many people (on both sides) the whole thing is effectively an exercise in ideology – hence the short fuses everywhere. On the other hand, there are some of us who are more interested in the quality of the argument, rather than the volume of the rhetoric.
May I be so bold as to make a suggestion regarding your reference ( or resources) pages? In the village where I live, my views are very much in the minority. However, the majority (of the majority) are somewhat inarticulate in their rejection of the AGW hypothesis. It would help them express themselves far better if there was some sort of introductory “primer” that they could be steered towards. (I know several such primers that are written with the premise that AGW is a given, but it would be inappropriate for me to recommend these.)
There may well already be such a file on your (or some other) site, but, as yet, I have still to locate it. (However, as my wife never tires of reminding me, I did once fail to find the only object in a sports bag!)
However, to repeat my original sentiment, I trust that all the health issues will be quickly resolved for the good.
Sorry you feel lambasted. I think you were unlucky with the prediction.
The original February projection of a 500,000 km2 increase in the September minimum was a reasonable prediction and looked like it might be too low at the end of March. Some doubt existed at the end of May when a new one day low was set, and at the end of June, but there was still plenty of time for the original prediction to come true. In July the melt slowed and if this had continued into August the minimum may have been just under the February prediction, but unfortunately for the prediction, the arctic dipole anomaly returned in August and brought relatively warm southerly winds into the Beaufort and Chukchi seas and a late minimum date in September.
At this point, a 2011 prediction of a 500,000 km2 increase from the September 2010 minimum of 4.6 million km2 would be a reasonable prediction since it would be at the 2009 minimum of 5.1 million km2. Some may even view hitting the single day minimum of 5.1 million km2 as a sign the arctic ice is recovering, even though it would be tied for the fourth lowest extent recorded in the satellite history and would be below the record minimum set in 2005. A more conservative approach requires that the Arctic ice minimum return to 5.7 million km2, the minimum for 2006, before believing that the decline in Arctic ice extent has leveled off. Even if this occurred, the Arctic ice would still be significantly below the 1979 to 2000 September average extent of 7.05 million km2.
I guess we could also predict the Antarctica sea ice minimum extent, but there does not appear to be much change in the minimum. Per Tamino the “Southern Hemisphere sea ice extent has actually increased during the satellite era. This isn’t statistically significant if one uses only the summer minimum, or winter maximum, values, although it’s almost significant for winter maximum. But if one uses data for all months, the increase in Antarctic sea ice extent since 1979 is statistically significant.” http://tamino.wordpress.com/2010/10/16/history-of-arctic-and-antarctic-sea-ice-part-1/
This increase may not be maintained, however, as Judith Curry thinks the substantial warming trend in the Southern Ocean may result in a decline in Antarctic sea ice extent.
Resolving the Paradox of the Antarctic Sea Ice
“Our finding raises some interesting possibilities about what we might see in the future. We may see, on a time scale of decades, a switch in the Antarctic, where the sea ice extent begins to decrease,” said Judith A. Curry, chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at Georgia Tech.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/08/100816154958.htm
Abstract
The observed sea surface temperature in the Southern Ocean shows a substantial warming trend for the second half of the 20th century. Associated with the warming, there has been an enhanced atmospheric hydrological cycle in the Southern Ocean that results in an increase of the Antarctic sea ice for the past three decades through the reduced upward ocean heat transport and increased snowfall. The simulated sea surface temperature variability from two global coupled climate models for the second half of the 20th century is dominated by natural internal variability associated with the Antarctic Oscillation, suggesting that the models’ internal variability is too strong, leading to a response to anthropogenic forcing that is too weak. With increased loading of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere through the 21st century, the models show an accelerated warming in the Southern Ocean, and indicate that anthropogenic forcing exceeds natural internal variability. The increased heating from below (ocean) and above (atmosphere) and increased liquid precipitation associated with the enhanced hydrological cycle results in a projected decline of the Antarctic sea ice.
Jiping Liu and, Judith A. Curry. Accelerated warming of the Southern Ocean and its impacts on the hydrological cycle and sea ice. PNAS, August 16, 2010 DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1003336107
I remember a matronly lady saying: “Somebody has got their undies in a bundle.” And I think that pertains to many of the comments here. Yes, Steve Goddard overestimated the Arctic Ice minimum, and, yes, the graph has some undesirable features concerning timing. BUT, people, get a grip! It is not Goddard’s graph. In fact, it is produced by his opponent! Goddard played by the rules established by his opponent. Comments here have passed the point of ridiculousness when some people do not think that the admission of error has been insufficiently strong. Such comments especially are ridiculous because the posters apparently forget that from the beginning, Goddard warned that weather conditions in September could make his prediction high. Compare that to the statement of his oppponent: “I do not see any way that the minimum will not be less than it was in 2007.”
In fact, Arctic Ice made a noteworthy dip later in September after appearing to level off. That is much more worthy of discussion than the depth of admission of error. Meier says that winds in September were not unusual. Does Goddard agree with that? AGW believers say that the ice is blown more easy by winds because the ice is thinner. That sounds plausible. Do skeptics have a response?
While we are at it: What’s up with Hudson Bay this month?
My November guess (made in Sea ice news #28) of 10.1 to 10.3 million km2 arctic sea ice extent per JAXA was wrong as the correct amount was 10,087,969 km2 making the low end estimate 12,031 km2 too high. I was lucky that it was this close.
The December 31 guess was 12.2 to 12.4 million km2.
Based on November, I should decrease the low end of the range to at most 12.0 million km2. The December 31 extent could be less than 12.0 million as the increase for December of 2002, 2004, 2005 and 2008 were each less than 1.8 million km2 with 2004 reporting an increase of 1,450,625 km2. On the other hand, 2006 reported an increase of 2,549,062 km2, but this was due in part to the unusual low for November 30 of 2006. The lowest December 31 extent of 12,230,156 km2 occurred in 2008, and the last three years have seen an average increase of 2.05 million km2 for December, so I will stick with the December guess made at the beginning of November.
While the actual December amount will depend on the weather, it is a certainty that the 2010 annual average ice extent as determined by NSIDC will be significantly lower than the average for 1979 to 2000 of 12.15 million km2 and the average for the period of 1979 to 2008 of 11.92 km2.
Will Crump says:
December 2, 2010 at 7:23 am
To the number of significant figures you reported, you were right. And I fail to see how you were “lucky” that you were that close. The next day was at the bottom of your range, three days after Nov 30 put the value in the top half of your range, and four days after put it about 94000 km^2 above your range. Luck seems to imply that the ice did better than the weather conditions would have led it to, which I don’t think is a justifiable position, especially given that the DMI temperatures are running colder than they have in years:
http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/meant80n.uk.php
-Scott
-Scott
Scott:
Thanks for your kind characterization, but as I watched the numbers in late November, I expected to miss the minimum by a much larger margin. On November 23 the JAXA number was 9,542,969 km2. The previous 7 days had only shown an increase of 195,625 km2 so it was possible that November 30 would be under 9.8 million km2. This would have put it just under the November 30, 2006 extent of 9,740,938 and I would have been off by a lot.
I was “saved” by the last 7 days of November, which showed an increase of 545,000 km2.
When I originally made the guess, I thought I might have been too low on the upper range as only 2006 and 2007 reported extent figures below 10.3 million km2. As recently as 2008, the November 30 extent reached 10,714,375 km2 and 2009 was 10,398,281 km2. If “the DMI temperatures are running colder than they have in years” then my guess should have been too low. Luckily for me and not the ice, November was warmer than average in the areas that had not been covered by ice at the end of October.
Your analysis that any prediction will likely only be a few days off is correct, and I agree that the ice extent was a reflection of the weather conditions for November, but I did not use a forecast of November weather conditions in my very unsophisticated guessing of November 30 ice extent. I do not put much faith in predicting weather conditions as these appear to be subject to sudden swings.
I am not sure what significance should be attached to the temperature model used by DMI to estimate the temperatures above 80 degrees north as this area appeared to already be ice covered at the end of October. (Please let me know if I am wrong on this.)
The temperature in the latitudes between 66 degrees and 80 degrees (to the extent such areas are sea and not land) appear to be the temperatures that should have the greatest impact on the growth in ice extent, but I have not found a source that tracks such temperatures.
According to the NSIDC analysis, which was not available when you posted, the November 2010 average was the second lowest (only 2006 was lower), and:
“Ice extent was unusually low in both the Atlantic and Pacific sectors of the Arctic and in Hudson Bay. Typically by the end of November, nearly half of Hudson Bay has iced over. But on November 30, only 17% of the bay was covered by sea ice. Compared to the 1979 to 2000 average, the ice extent was 12.4% below average for the Arctic as a whole.”
NSIDC attributed the slow November growth to local weather, saying::
“This November, ice extent over the entire Arctic grew at an average rate of 74,000 square kilometers per day (28,600 miles per day), which is slower than average. However, local weather conditions kept ice extent very low in some locations, contributing to the low extent for the month.
Near-surface air temperatures over the Siberian and Alaskan side of the Arctic were 3 to 5 degrees Celsius (5 to 9 degrees Fahrenheit) warmer than normal in November. Air temperatures over Baffin Bay were also unusually warm (8 degrees Celsius, or 14 degrees Fahrenheit above average). The warm air came from two sources: unfrozen areas of the ocean continued to release heat to the atmosphere; and a circulation pattern brought warm air into the Arctic from the south.”
http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/2010/120610.html
These local weather differences appear to be much larger than the temperature changes indicated in the DMI chart. While I have seen many bloggers, including Joe Bastardi, refer to the DMI above 80 degree north temperature model as a proxy for ice growth expectations, I do not believe this is correct as the temperature difference from the average noted by DMI is too small (and still below the freezing point of sea water) to have caused the low ice extent in November.
I appreciate your comment, but I still think anyone who guesses the right number is lucky more than they are knowledgeable about Arctic sea ice conditions.
Do you think ice extent over the next five years will stabilize, continue to report declines, or recover to levels higher than the record minimum reported in 2002?
At this point, (based on numbers reported by NSIDC) I expect the next five years to continue the declining trend line, but perhaps the rate of decline will slow (due to the the size of the remaining area). I base this guess on the prospects for increasing TSI, warming from lower albedo, and anthropogenic activity forcing. Even so, I expect at least one of these years to report higher ice extent than the 2010 minimum, but do not expect to see the minimum return to a level higher than the 2002 minimum. I expect a new minimum to be reported in at least one year in the next decade and perhaps within the next five years.
Time will tell.