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
Smokey says:
May 20, 2011 at 9:35 pm
Terra Incognita,
Is that what you want?
———————————
What Terra Incognita wants (and I suspect desperately, despite him protesting that less Arctic ice is a disaster) is less Arctic ice.
I have a Ph.D but not in psychiatry, so can’t help.
Just like fake socialism, wanting to save poor people, but with a requirement for creating more of them to save.
James Sexton says: May 20, 2011 at 9:27 pm
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.
I tend to agree, with so many variables influencing Arctic Sea Ice, its value as an effective thermometer of Earth is highly questionable.
Antarctic sea ice might be somewhat better, as there are less anthropogenic influences and the Southern Hemisphere has smaller and less variable minimums;
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/seaice.area.antarctic.png
but polar vorticity, the Antarctic Oscillation (AAO) (you can see some background on the AAO on the WUWT Atmospheric Oscillations page:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/reference-pages/atmospheric-oscillation/ ), ocean currents and circulation, cloud cover, etc. will still impact accuracy.
Southern Hemisphere Sea Ice Area is currently average, but it has seen several record highs in the last few years:
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/seaice.anomaly.antarctic.png
The most effective Sea Ice based Earth Thermometer is likely Global Sea Ice Area, as it takes into account both sides of the coin:
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/global.daily.ice.area.withtrend.jpg
Smokey says:
May 20, 2011 at 9:35 pm
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.
==========================================
Naw Smoke, it just turns out that ice destroying atmospheric CO2 peaked in 2007.
http://suyts.files.wordpress.com/2011/05/image.png
Just The Facts says:
May 20, 2011 at 10:40 pm
James Sexton says: May 20, 2011 at 9:27 pm
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.
I tend to agree, with so many variables influencing Arctic Sea Ice, its value as an effective thermometer of Earth is highly questionable.
=====================================================
Right, plus, the albedo effect of the arctic is entirely over weighted. It’s silly to think there’s some trigger that’s going to be pulled if and when the arctic cap melts, again.
Its funny, similar to what philincalifornia (May 20, 2011 at 9:49 pm) about Terra secretly wanting the ice to melt, I openly want it to melt, so the world can get over this obsession. Maybe then the people worried about it can apply their resources to something useful.
steven mosher,
Maybe it’s late and that’s the reason I can’t follow what you’re trying to say. Let me point out again that Gates has put forth his hypothesis that CO2 is the cause of Arctic ice decline. It is up to him [and you too, if you believe the same thing], to provide empirical evidence supporting that hypothesis. Otherwise, his hypothesis becomes a conjecture; an opinion.
Evidence is a tough thing to get around, that’s why the warmist crowd doesn’t like it, or the scientific method it’s based upon. Either you have real world evidence, or you’re operating on an evidence-free belief system.
Let’s see the evidence.
Just The Facts says:
May 20, 2011 at 8:55 pm
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?
[snip]
Terra Incognita says: May 20, 2011 at 8:51 pm
Everyone believes that they have looked at all or most the “facts”
No, I’ve looked at a tremendous number of facts, but I know that I am privy to a tiny fraction of the potential universe of available facts. It seems as though you delude yourself and then assume that everyone else does as well.
Only problem is, and I’ve been observing this site for a few years, that the majority of the people here are relying on their version of “fact based intuition”.
I’ve been around here for a lot longer than you, and I’ve found the people on this site are some of the most reasoned, rational and fact based individuals I’ve come across.
I’m skeptical ☺ of their facts but nobody here, including me, pretends to have done a rigorous scientific analysis
You can yap about rigor all you want, but it doesn’t change the fact that you haven’t been able to refute anything I’ve written…
Smokey says:
May 20, 2011 at 11:37 pm
steven mosher,
Maybe it’s late and that’s the reason I can’t follow what you’re trying to say. Let me point out again that Gates has put forth a hypothesis that CO2 is the cause of Arctic ice decline.
===============================
Yep, Smokey, its late for you. Mosh is babbling on the other thread.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/05/20/indirect-solar-forcing-of-climate-by-galactic-cosmic-rays-an-observational-estimate/#comment-664895
As the late, great John Daly has documented, the same natural Arctic sea ice cycle has occurred in the past, most recently in the early 1800’s. The curent natural cycle is nothing unusual.
Arctic ice is currently declining. So what? There is zero evidence that it is anything other than natural climate variability.
The true believers in catastrophic AGW will never be convinced otherwise, even if the planet descends into the next great Ice Age. Like Leon Festinger’s Seekers, the cognitive dissonace-afflicted true believers will still remain convinced, against all evidence, that runaway global warming is right around the corner.
Terra Incognita says: May 20, 2011 at 11:37 pm
Actually, JTF, you hit it right on the nail. Now if you would take into account the fact that I said “thin” as well as shrink. Then I mentioned 70% as the “volume”.
The only thing you missed, JTF was the statistics for thinning. But hey, you got the shrink statistics right so I’m sure you can figure out the approximate 40% worth of thinning. That would come out to 64%. I have a feeling the actual figures are a tad more but the difference between 64% and 70% is . . .
This is incoherent gibberish. Go find me a worthy adversary…
James Sexton says:
May 20, 2011; 10:56 pm
“Naw Smoke, it just turns out that ice destroying atmospheric CO2 peaked in 2007.”
[snip]
Just The Facts says:
“This is incoherent gibberish. Go find me a worthy adversary…”
Seconded.
Suareg said: I would expect a moderate ice melt, with a minimum extent of 5.4 sq. kms. We have had a nice La Nina this winter. Cold ENSO events are usually followed by some recovery in extent, while El Nino years often produce extra ice melt (like in 2005, 2007 or 2010).
Well, I’ve seen evidence from Tisdale that Arctic ice lags ENSO by a couple of years, and therefore I think this year’s minimum will be lower than last, in fact second lowest in the modern record. So I went for 4.6-4.8 (which someone already commented must be a typo for 4.6-4.7). I did this before reading this thread and noticing several comments about Tamino’s 4.63. That’s odd – I don’t usually agree with Tamino!
The recovery which many are looking for will come in 2012.
Like many, I’d like to see an end to anthropogenic ice-breaking…
Rich.
Smokey:
“Its funny, similar to what philincalifornia (May 20, 2011 at 9:49 pm) about Terra secretly wanting the ice to melt, I openly want it to melt, so the world can get over this obsession. Maybe then the people worried about it can apply their resources to something useful.”
[snip]
Couple of interesting observations :
The IPCC model projections for Arctic Sea Ice extent follow the long-term (30 year) average trend, which projects a target 5.2 million km^2 extent by 2011 and ice-free Arctic conditions by around 2070.
The WUWT poll here returned 439 entries by the time I entered by vote, and a simple calculation of the results reveals that the average projection of WUWT voters for minimum sea ice extent 2011 is at this point 5.16 million km^2.
For those here who ever posted objections against the IPCC, it seems that your estimate on average is less than 1 % away from what your opinion suggests.
Of course, in the real world, where real people bet real money, the odds of 2011 minimum sea ice extent being below 2007 (4.3 million km^2) are more than 65% :
https://www.intrade.com/v4/markets/contract/?contractId=744206
Seems to me that both the IPCC and WUWT readers are seriously out of touch with reality.
BA [May 20, 2011 at 9:53 am] says:
Oh, I stand corrected then. I see the reference now:
I was trying to deduce from the above comments what was going on and missed that statement, since there isn’t a chance of me clicking on his website these days. Last time I did drop in was circa the epic VS/Bart thread but lost interest once it became clear that he was too much of a wuss to take a random walk over to Bart’s and engage first hand. He instead chose to allow his groupies to act as proxies. In my ‘hood we got a name for that kind of guy, but it probably isn’t allowed here.
You didn’t really say that out loud did you? Without a sarc? Are you a she? Just askin.
Well let’s see if Terra Incognita can own up to his error, shall we? First I said this …
Then Terra Incognita said this …
Can you spot your mistake. Here is a hint:
Ok, I’ll help, unless R. Gates has a time machine she could not have made a prediction In that thread 6 months ago, and, have it dated May 19, 2011 at 4:17 pm. Could she?
Anthony, what do you think this year’s minimum extent will be? Will we see another recovery like the last 3 years?
I go for 4.2…
Terra Incognita says:
May 21, 2011 at 12:03 am
James Sexton says:
May 20, 2011; 10:56 pm
“Naw Smoke, it just turns out that ice destroying atmospheric CO2 peaked in 2007.”
Most of today’s melting is the result of several decades worth of heat accumulation in the ocean. It takes a while for water to heat up compared to air due to its being a 1,000 times denser.
As for CO2 “peaking”, what exactly do you mean? It is obvious that CO2 is still increasing by about 2 ppm per year. Are you claiming that CO2 increase has somehow stopped?
=========================================
Terra, sorry, I don’t comment here as much as I used to, so you may not be familiar with my humor.
This thread is about our doomed arctic cap…….supposedly caused by increased atmospheric CO2. If you’d clicked on the link I provided, you see that it seems to be recovering quit nicely from a low in 2007. Yes, I know it is a very short time frame, but there it is. Claiming recent melt is as ridiculous as claiming recent warming,
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:2001/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:2001/trend
If CO2 caused increase temps and ice melt, its falling down on its jobs. I think we need to fire CO2 as a bogeyman and go back to Jason and Freddie….. now those guys are scary!
BTW,
Smokey:James“Its funny, similar to what philincalifornia (May 20, 2011 at 9:49 pm) about Terra secretly wanting the ice to melt, I openly want it to melt, so the world can get over this obsession. Maybe then the people worried about it can apply their resources to something useful.”
I said that not Smokey. There was a recent study done (story here on WUWT) about even if the ice did melt, it is very likely it would quickly return. I’d provide the link but I’m real busy right now. All humor aside, I seriously believe alarmist have wasted the resources and energies of this world for over 30 years. Can you imagine what this world could have accomplished had it not been for this issue? Think of all the money that was diverted from real science. Think of the asinine policies enacted that have thwarted and inhibited progress. They are the reason for the extended economic difficulties in the U.S. and around the world.
Peace
Terra Incogitato says:
“The real b!tch is the radically changed weather dynamics of an open Arctic ocean. It’s already occurring.”
There is no difference in current temperatures, trends, or rates of change from what has happened repeatedly throughout the Holocene. It is simply regional climate variability.
As a matter of fact, today’s climate is of the “Goldilocks” variety. Past changes – prior to the industrial revolution – have often been much more abrupt and devastating. Thus the climate null hypothesis remains un-falsified, and the alternative CO2=CAGW
hypothesisconjecture fails because it has no evidence to support it. None.Finally, Terra objects to “alarmist.” It is not a derogatory term, it is accurate: some people are sounding the alarm over CO2 [or “carbon” if you prefer – an even more ridiculous assertion]. There is nothing wrong with labeling them as alarmists, because that is exactly what they are doing: deliberately alarming the populace.
If there was any physical evidence supporting their view, they might have an excuse. But with no supporting evidence, what they are doing is tantamount to falsely shouting “Fire!” in a crowded theater. They are climate alarmists, therefore it is an accurate label, no?
OTOH, denigrating honest scientific skeptics as “denialists,” “deniers,” “contrarians,” etc., is simply a fallback position for folks who have no empirical, testable, measurable evidence to support their belief that CO2 is driving the climate toward catastrophe.
If it weren’t for their name-calling they would have little to say, because the complete lack of testable evidence means their belief system is faith-based, not science-based. So they call skeptics vile names that are deliberately associated with the Holocaust, because their hypothesis has failed the scientific method’s requirement of testability.
Plumped for greater than 6.0m, on the basis that there is much more multi-year ice now, plus we shall probably have another cold winter in the north.
.
Smokey says:
May 21, 2011 at 12:01 am
“As the late, great John Daly has documented, the same natural Arctic sea ice cycle has occurred in the past, most recently in the early 1800′s. The curent natural cycle is nothing unusual.”
When will people stop using John Daly’s outdated arguments? For instance, in that same argument you reference, she stated:
“The total area of the Arctic Ocean is about 14 million sq. km. The above graph shows a significant shrinkage of ice extent during 1979 at the end of the Arctic cold period, amounting to almost 1 million sq. km., or 7% of the total. Since 1979, the ice area has largely stabilised, reaching a brief minimum around 1995, and increasing again since then.”
His argument largely made sense at the time, when his most recent data for sea ice extent extended as far as the year 2000, but now we have 10 more years of data. That “brief minimum” in 1995 was a September extent of 6.13 million km2. The September extent last year? 4.90 million km2. In 2007 it was 4.30 million km2. September 1995, his minimum value, is now barely hanging on to a spot in the top 10 lowest September extents.
Furthermore, explain “same natural cycle” to me. I get that an anecdotal account (many, in fact) tells me that a whole lot of ice was melting in the Arctic back in the 1800s. Where’s the evidence that it started out at the same amount it did in the 1970s? If it was the “same natural cycle” as you imply, then it should follow that the ice extent in 1800 was approximately the same as it was in the 1970s. If not, then your argument is on just as shaky ground as you seem to think the counterarguments of others are.
The Northern Hemisphere was in the midst of recovery from the Little Ice Age during the 1800s, a period which was much colder than it is today…or even than it was 50 years ago. Perhaps that was the reason people were astounded by the melt in ice: because there was so much more of it then? Or do you deny the LIA occurred or that we are no longer in it? If you do not deny it, then do you seriously think that the amount of sea ice and glacial ice during the LIA was roughly equivalent to the amount of glacial and sea ice in the 1970s? That’s what your argument of “same natural cycles” would seem to imply.
So which is it? Is emergence from the centuries-long LIA in the 1800s the “same natural cycle” as the one we’re experiencing now, or is it something different? Should we perhaps call the two-decade span from the 1960s to 1970s the “Even Littler Ice Age”?
>>Roger
>>Has Prince Charles voted yet? With his deadline for an ice free
>>arctic fast approaching, I think we should be told.
Shhh, don’t tell anyone, but Charlie-boy uses the nome-de-plume of ‘Wilson’, in the bar graphs above. He is known as Green Willie to his courtiers, but I am sure that a dose of penecillin will clear it up.
.
.
That should read “For instance, in that same argument you reference, he stated:” My apologies.
Travis,
Natural climate variability is the null hypothesis, against which any alternative hypothesis [such as CO2=ice free Arctic] must be tested. Since there is no measurable difference between the current climate and past climate extremes, there should not be an ad hoc presumption that what we currently observe is unusual. It is not. The Arctic has been ice free before.
Scientific skepticism is not just a good idea, it is a requirement of the scientific method. The assumption that CO2 is the cause of the current Arctic ice decline has no supporting empirical evidence, and the null hypothesis remains un-falsified. Why would you think the current variability is anything other than the natural ebb and flow of the Arctic climate cycle?