It has been awhile since I’ve done a sea-ice report. That said, not much of note has been going on in the sea-ice arena, we are in that time of year when all of the years converge into a tighter grouping. But as usual, the race to forecast the minimum is on again. Will be be another Serreze death spiral media opportunity? Or will it be ho-hum- nothing to see here, move along?
JAXA AMSR-E Sea Ice Extent -15% or greater – click to enlarge
Anyone can submit a forecast to ARCUS, all you need is a rationale and you have to put your name on it. Even “SWAG” qualifies as a rationale, though there are many who will use models and statistical techniques to try predicting the sea-ice minimum.
I’m going to give WUWT readers an opportunity to make a forecast for submission, based on voting. See the poll at the end. I’ll run this poll each month in the week before the deadline, and we’ll see how we do as the minimum approaches. The value used by ARCUS is the NSIDC value as they say here:
The sea ice monthly extent for September 2010 was 4.9 million square kilometers, based on National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC) estimates.
So don’t be using the JAXA graph to forecast minimums, though it it useful for determining short term trends as it is more responsive than the NSDIC graph below, which is averaged.
Here is what past reports looked like:
Here’s the details on making a submission:
Call for 2011 Sea Ice Outlook Contributions – June Report (Based on May Data)
May 6, 2011
Call for 2011 Sea Ice Outlook Contributions June Report (Based on May Data) Study of Environmental Arctic Change (SEARCH)
Pan-Arctic Outlook submission deadline: Tuesday, 31 May 2011
Regional Outlook submission deadline: Friday, 27 May 2011
For further information, please go to: http://www.arcus.org/search/seaiceoutlook/index.php Or contact: Helen Wiggins, ARCUS Email: helen@arcus.org ——————–
The Sea Ice Outlook (SIO) organizers are soliciting pan-arctic and regional outlooks for the first report of the season, the June report (based on May data). We encourage past and new contributors to participate. The organizers have planned for several improvements this year, including increasing attention to error estimates, addition of sea ice thickness information where available, additional outreach efforts, and further development of the “Data Resources” webpage (http://www.arcus.org/search/seaiceoutlook/data.php – please send any relevant links for us to add). We also have provided a tentative schedule for the entire season, which is available at the bottom of this message.
**ALL Outlook submissions should be sent directly to Helen Wiggins, ARCUS, at: helen@arcus.org, with the following subject lines, as relevant:
** PAN-ARCTIC OUTLOOK – [YOUR LAST NAME] REGIONAL OUTLOOK – [YOUR LAST NAME] OUTLOOK FOR BOTH REGIONAL AND PAN-ARCTIC – [YOUR LAST NAME]
A Word document is preferred for ease of formatting to PDF files and extracting images for the website – we will not edit your individual submission and will not post your Word documents.
SUBMITTING A PAN-ARCTIC OUTLOOK
Pan-arctic Outlook contributions should include:
1. Extent Projection Provide a sea ice projection for the September monthly mean arctic sea ice extent (in million square kilometers).
2. Methods/Techniques Provide the type of estimate (heuristic, statistical, ice-ocean model ensemble runs, etc.).
3. Rationale Include a short paragraph on the physical rationale for the estimate.
4. Executive Summary Provide a short paragraph that summarizes your outlook contribution in two or three sentences.
5. Estimate of Forecast Skill (if available) If possible, please include any estimates of forecast skill, uncertainty, or error associated with your prediction. This year, we will add error estimates to the summary bar chart of outlook estimates, as appropriate. This year we would also like to include a brief discussion of ice thickness in the monthly reports, so please include any relevant information on ice thickness (or age), if available. Pan-Arctic
Outlook submission deadline: Tuesday, 31 May 2011. All Outlooks should be sent to: Helen Wiggins, ARCUS Email: helen@arcus.org
SUBMITTING A REGIONAL OUTLOOK
Regional Outlook contributions should include:
1. Region of Interest While more specific sub-regions may be identified, at a minimum, please specify which of the following the outlook applies to: Arctic Regions:
– Beaufort-Chukchi Seas
– East Siberian-Laptev Seas
– Kara-Barents-Greenland Seas
– Canadian Arctic Archipelago and Nares Strait
– Hudson Bay
– Sea of Okhotsk
– Bering Sea Shipping Routes:
– Northwest Passage
– Northeast Passage (Northern Sea Route)
– Arctic Bridge (Murmansk-Churchill)
2. Sea Ice Parameter Provide a regional pattern or a single value estimate of phonological stages (i.e., melt onset, freeze onset, break-up and freeze-up dates, length of open water season) or monthly ice concentration, ice area, and ice extent. Please indicate whether you expect ice conditions to be similar, lighter (i.e., lower ice concentrations, earlier melt onset, earlier break-up, later freeze-up), or heavier (i.e., greater ice concentrations, later melt onset, later break-up, earlier freeze-up) than those of summer 2010.
3. Outline of Methods/Techniques Provide the type of estimate (heuristic, statistical, ice-ocean model, traditional knowledge, etc.) with a brief description of the methodology and a short paragraph describing the physical rationale for the estimate.
4. Estimate of Forecast Skill If possible, please include any estimates of forecast skill, uncertainty, or error associated with your prediction.
5. Improving Outlook Detail and Accuracy (Optional) What information would be needed to improve the level of detail provided in your Regional Outlook or increase the accuracy/confidence in your prediction? Regional Outlook submission deadline: Friday, 27 May 2011. All Outlooks should be sent to: Helen Wiggins, ARCUS Email: helen@arcus.org
TENTATIVE 2011 SEA ICE OUTLOOK SCHEDULE JUNE REPORT (using May data). Deadline for contributions: Regional – 27 May; Pan-Arctic – 31 May. Publish reports online: 10 June.
JULY REPORT (using June data). Deadline for contributions: 31 June. Publish reports online: 15 July.
AUGUST REPORT (using July data). Deadline for contributions: 29 July. Publish reports online: 12 August.
SEPTEMBER REPORT (brief updates based on August data). Deadline for contributions: 30 August. Publish reports online: 14 September. MINIMUM ANNOUNCEMENT – Based on the National Snow and Ice Data Center’s (NSIDC) announcement for minimum.
POST-SEASON SYNOPSIS (exact dates dependent on when minimum is reached). Deadline for contributions: early October. Publish post-season synopsis: late October. For further information on the Sea Ice Outlook, please go to: http://www.arcus.org/search/seaiceoutlook/index.php. Or contact: Helen Wiggins, ARCUS Email: helen@arcus.org
=================================================================
WUWT poll for sea ice forecast:
Use the WUWT Sea Ice Page to get your bearings before voting.
Only one vote per person, and I have engaged the security features to prevent vote stuffing. Poll will close May 30th at midnight PST, and the results will be submitted to ARCUS on the day of the deadline:
Pan-Arctic Outlook submission deadline: Tuesday, 31 May 2011
My computer model has just finished. It says, with +/-100%, certainty that it will be greater than 6 million. I have total confidence in it as it is written in Microsoft Visual Basic. I ran it on a Dual processor PC which had lots of memory. I also did a virus scan. I ran my model against the temp and ice records for the last 100 years. After a bit of tweaking and a few nudges it was one hundred percent accurate for every day since 1900 – 2009.
I’m going with 5.1-5.2 based on thicker ice according to PIPS and slightly cooler SST in Barents and Greenland Sea.
Since I’m guessing, error bars have no practical meaning.
And I see in a comment above that someone says that Tamino Foster Grant finally climbed out on a limb with a prediction now, six months later. Way to go G-Man.
No, you did not see that. You sound so sure about your knowledge, though!
Tamino’s 4.63 prediction was part of a typically thoughtful post he made 25 October 2010, seven months ago.
I believe that it will be around 5.2 – 5.3 million km^2. I have been noticing a rightward shift of crest and trough the last few years on the graph and I expect this trend to continue. Look at the last three years of sea Ice extent on the graph. All are lower than average in the month of January but by May all three years are above average. I have no idea of causation other than natural cycles that are yet undiscovered.
This is what we are up against. Andrew Sullivan is a well respected blogger, but when he prints charts like this….how to defend against it?
http://andrewsullivan.thedailybeast.com/2011/05/chart-of-the-day-7.html
On UNISYS the North Pacific and North Atlantic are both looking quite cold, especially the North West Pacific. With a clockwise N Pacific Gyre could this mean cold input to the Arctic from the Pacific? A swing in the opposite direction from the warm el Nino leftovers being swept up to the Arctic in the Pacific in the previous few years.
Mike Sander says:
May 20, 2011 at 12:34 pm
This is what we are up against. Andrew Sullivan is a well respected blogger, but when he prints charts like this….how to defend against it?
http://andrewsullivan.thedailybeast.com/2011/05/chart-of-the-day-7.html
————————————————
It has to be a huge error surely ?? No one could expect to get away with perpetrating such a fraud …. well other than some people we know.
It’s my understanding, following my own research of other’s work, that the arctic goes through a 70-ish year cycle of ice mass and that we are currently living in the minimum ice extent period. I see this recorded in history as times when the north-west passage is traversable without an icebreaker.
I would love to see a historical plot of ice extent, say every 3rd or 4th year, going back as far as the data allows. Just so I could get an idea in my head of longer term trends at the top of the world… if such data exists of course.
My prediction:
there is no death spiral.
[snip]
Terra Incognita says: May 19, 2011 at 11:51 pm
Therefore the thinness of the icebreaker’s path, in contrast to the entire ice extent, would hardly have any effect.
Interestingly the Russians have given us an opportunity to try to measure the effect:
“Leaking nuclear icebreaker escorted out of ice covered Kara Sea 2011-05-06
UPDATED: “Taimyr” was Friday evening escorted by the the nuclear powered icebreaker “Rossia” into a bay on the Vaigach island. – Ongoing leakages of cooling water from the reactor can evolve into a serious accident with potential for radioactive leakages, says nuclear physicist Nils Bøhmer in Bellona.
The nuclear powered icebreaker was earlier this week escorting vessels on the Yenisei river north of the port-town of Dudinka when increased levels of radiation were detected in the air ventilation system of the reactor. The icebreaker aborted its mission and started Thursday to sail back towards the homeport in Murmansk on Russia’s Kola Peninsula.”
http://www.barentsobserver.com/leaking-nuclear-icebreaker-escorted-out-of-ice-covered-kara-sea.4917481-116320.html
So ice breaking on the Kara Sea has been disrupted since May 6th. If you look at the Kara Sea Ice Area chart;
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/recent365.anom.region.7.html
it seems that a strong decline began in mid-April and continued until early May, when Sea Ice Area stabilized. In the last few days it seems to be staging a small comeback…
Terra Incognita, do you think the disruption of ice breaking activities on the Kara Sea might have a measurable effect on Sea Ice Area?
[snip]
Terra Incognita,
I would
likepay to see you call Joe Bastardi a ‘bloviator’ to his face.Just The Facts says:
May 20, 2011 at 7:44 pm
“Terra Incognita, do you think the disruption of ice breaking activities on the Kara Sea might have a measurable effect on Sea Ice Area?”
[snip]
Smokey says:
May 20, 2011; 7:49 pm
Terra Incognita,
I would
likepay to see you call Joe Bastardi a ‘bloviator’ to his face.[snip]
To be clear for those who are forecasting the minimum, as the situation in the Kara returns to normal, “the lack of “Taimyr” in operation will likely have no implications for this season’s sailing along the Northern Sea Route. Rosatomflot has one sister-vessel similar to “Taimyr” – the “Vaigach” with same capabilities to break ice in shallow waters. Also more powerful icebreakers, like “Rossia”, “Yamal”, “50 years of Victory”, and “Sovyetsky Souz” will assure enough ice-breaker capacity for the season.”
http://www.barentsobserver.com/radioactive-incident-icebreaker-back-in-port.4919238-116320.html
Terra Incognita says:
“Gates; we’re in the same ballpark as far as AGW is concerned but I believe, on intuition mostly…”
LOL! Two true believers, who have zero empirical evidence – but plenty of intuition-based belief.
The scientific method has made it possible for us to go to medical doctors now to treat diseases, instead of witch doctors. These two guys have no evidence, and no need for the scientific method, so they believe in their juju.☺
Just The Facts says:
May 20, 2011 at 8:08 pm
There’s an icebreaker called Yamal ?? No way ??
Right, even though I’m not a conspiracy theorist, I think I’m going to demand a GIA – global icebreaker adjustment. That acronym’s not taken is it ??
Terra Incognita says:
“How much?”
You’ve called my bluff. I wouldn’t want to be liable for people seeing you get squashed like a bug.☺
But Joe is by all accounts a really nice guy. He would probably respond to being called a bloviator like Humphrey Bogart did in Casa Blanca, when Peter Lorre whined in his nasal accent:
“You despise me, don’t you, Rick?”
“If I thought about you, Ugati, I probably would.”
Smokey says:
May 20, 2011; 8:09 pm
Terra Incognita says:
[snip]
Terra,
If it’s not too much trouble, please define “fact-based intuition”.
See, I worship the scientific method. It keeps the witch doctors at bay.
[snip]
Terra Incognita says: May 20, 2011 at 8:05 pm
But what has been causing the ice cap to thin and shrink (approximately 70%+ by volume) throughout the past 3 decades?
If you look at all of the minimums in Sea Ice Area for the last 3 decades;
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/seaice.area.arctic.png
you’ll note how the average minimum seems to have decreased from around 5 million sq km in the 80s to around 3 million sq km in the last few years. That works out to around a 40% decrease. Is your “approximately 70%” a guess or can you provide a factual basis for it?
In terms of the source of the 40% decline, I’d say natural variations in polar vorticity, the Arctic Oscillation, wind speed and direction, air temps and water temps, as well as anthropogenic forces including icebreakers, shipping, fisherman, cruise liners, and their associated ice breaking, soot, waste water discharges, heat discharges, churning/turbulence, etc. However, if you are looking for a “Global Warming Signature” currently Lower Troposphere Temperatures are only slightly above average;
ftp://ftp.ssmi.com/msu/graphics/tlt/plots/rss_ts_channel_tlt_global_land_and_sea_v03_3.png
so most of this year’s negative .953 million sq. mm Arctic Sea Ice Area Anomaly;
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/seaice.anomaly.arctic.png
is likely due to something other than CO2.
Terra Incognita says:
May 20, 2011 at 8:26 pm
Remember the predictions, on this site, made just a couple years ago, that we were going to return to 1979 ice extent levels and recuperate ice thickness in a few years(!)?
========================================================
lol, Terra, how far do you go back here? I’m looking at the data, and it says that since 2007, its doing quite well. I’ll put the minimum months on a linear trend if you’d like to see. Seeing the recent temp trends, it’s fine, although I posit wind and sea currents have more to do with ice extent than temps do n a year to year basis.
Honestly, I find this exercise about how big or how little the ice will be a bit tedious in that I don’t think it matters. And, yeh, you’re probably underestimating the amount of megalomaniacs [here]……… but then isn’t that the nature of us all that comment here? Knowing that there are 100’s of more readers than commentators…….
Terra Incognita,
You have the scientific method exactly backward. Gates made the conjecture that CO2 is causing the Arctic ice to melt. Therefore, skeptics have nothing to prove. Gates made the conjecture, now it is up to him to defend it – with verifiable evidence.
The onus is on the believers in CO2=CAGW to convincingly show, with verifiable, testable, and measurable evidence, that CO2 is the culprit. They have failed.
If you reject the scientific method, it’s back to the witch doctors. Is that what you want?