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
Hi
I voted less than 4.5
Oh and BTW thanks for providing a means for determining the number of sock puppets who post on this site 🙂
evidence, that runaway global warming is right around the corner.
Just The Facts says:
May 21, 2011; 2:02 am
Terra Incognita says: May 20, 2011 at 11:37 pm
“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 . . .
JTF responds:
“This is incoherent gibberish. Go find me a worthy adversary…”
Villabolo responds: [snip]
Smokey says:
May 21, 2011; 8:50 am
Terra Incogitato says:
“The real b!tch is the radically changed weather dynamics of an open Arctic ocean. It’s already occurring.”
Smoke responds:
“. . . Past changes – prior to the industrial revolution – have often been much more abrupt and devastating. . . .”
[snip]
Terra Incogitato,
Stop it, you’re scaring yourself. Malthusian Luddites are motivated by fear. But despite their constant alarming conjectures, we’re still here and doing better than ever. That is an empirical observation, and it trumps your baseless CAGW fantasies.
Also, I deliberately kept things impersonal by commenting: “If it weren’t for their name-calling they would have little to say…” etc. If you want to put yourself in the ranks of their and they, that’s your choice.
Now, let’s deconstruct your numbered list…
#1 & #2 are covered in my comment above. For #3, you state that I’m wrong about the “abrupt” part. Go argue with R.B. Alley, it’s his description. And #4 is simply baseless, wild-eyed conjecture, as are pretty much all your posts in this thread – and you’ve posted a lot, arguing with a lot of reasonable folks.
Really, you’re just scaring yourself with the alarming Algore ghost stories. Nothing catastrophic, or even unusual is happening. The world is going on like it always has, disregarding the puny human effects.
RE: Smokey May 21, 2011 at 2:11 pm
In your enthusiasm for giving me your lecture on natural variability being the null hypothesis, you missed my point entirely. I completely agree that natural variability must be the null hypothesis. MY argument was that the natural cycles John Daly mentioned are not sufficient to explain the current changes, and that different factors are at work than there were in the 1800s. Never did I claim in my argument that natural cycles were NOT the cause of the recent changes in sea ice. I never advocated for CAGW as the cause of any death spiral. I’m simply saying that we need to recognize that even if they are still natural, there are different forces at work now than there were when John Daly wrote his piece.
Smokey says:
May 21, 2011 at 5:46 pm
“Also, I deliberately kept things impersonal by commenting: “If it weren’t for their name-calling they would have little to say…” etc. If you want to put yourself in the ranks of their and they, that’s your choice.”
[snip]
Terra Incognita says: May 21, 2011 at 4:09 pm
evidence, that runaway global warming is right around the corner.
I await it with bated breath…
Is that your way of avoiding the fact that you totally forgot about the thinning when you “corrected” me for stating there was a 70% reduction in volume?
No, it is my way of telling you that I do not consider you a worthy adversary…
In terms of sea ice volume, there is currently no effective measure of it, thus none of the key Sea Ice Data sources offer it, you can check for yourself:
The Cryosphere Today – Arctic Climate Research at the University of Illinois:
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/
National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC):
http://nsidc.org/
http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/
http://nsidc.org/searchlight/
University of Bremenpart
http://www.iup.uni-bremen.de/eng/
http://www.iup.uni-bremen.de/iuppage/psa/2001/amsrop.html
http://www.iup.uni-bremen.de:8084/
International Arctic Research Center/Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency (IARC-JAXA)
http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/en/
http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/en/home/
Danish Meteorological Institute (DMI)
http://ocean.dmi.dk/english/index.php
http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/index.uk.php
http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/antarctic_melting.html
More sources can be found on the WUWT Sea Ice Page:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/reference-pages/sea-ice-page/
When you reference volume I assume you mean the spurious PIOMAS Arctic Sea Ice Volume model and chart by Jinlun Zhang:
http://psc.apl.washington.edu/ArcticSeaiceVolume/IceVolume.php
If you look here:
http://psc.apl.washington.edu/zhang/Global_seaice/model.html
you can see how Dr. Zhang voodooed up his garbage model.
The page states that, “Satellite sea ice concentration data are assimilated in GIOMAS using the Lindsay and Zhang (2005) assimilation procedure. The procedure is based on “nudging” the model estimate of ice concentration toward the observed concentration in a manner that emphasizes the ice extent and minimizes the effect of observational errors in the interior of the ice pack.”
According to this paper:
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/full/10.1175/JTECH1871.1
“Because of the errors in the summer Gice dataset ice concentration in the interior of the pack (as well as errors in summer ice concentration based on passive microwave observations), assimilation of ice concentration is accomplished in a method that emphasizes the extent over the concentration. The observations are weighted heavily only when there is a large discrepancy between the model and the observed concentration. Each day the model estimate Cmod is nudged to a revised estimate Ĉmod with the relationship.”
So Zhang used an erroneous data set, weighted heavily when observations didn’t fit the model and then “nudged” its output to the results that he wanted. This is not rigorous science, it is a joke.
Zhang has a history of contorting himself to help paint over the gaps in the Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming Narrative.
In the NASA article/press release;
http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/antarctic_melting_prt.htm
it states that “Jinlun Zhang, an oceanographer at the University of Washington, has pieced together a complex computer model that helps explain why Antarctic sea ice is expanding even with signs that ocean and air temperatures are on the rise.”
and here is one of the propaganda pieces that he’s produced:
“Zhang, J., R.W. Lindsay , M. Steele, and A. Schweiger, What drove the dramatic retreat of Arctic sea ice during summer 2007? Geophys. Res. Lett., 35, L11505, doi:10.1029/2008GL034005, 2008.”
http://psc.apl.washington.edu/lindsay/pdf_files/Zhang%20etal%20GRL2008%20-%20ice%20retreat%20in%202007.pdf
In it Zhang states that, “Arctic sea ice in 2007 was preconditioned to radical changes” and this contributed to “The dramatic decline”, this is not objective science, rather it’s alarmist rhetoric.
Zhang also co-wrote a paper with Mark “Death Spiral” Serreze and Keith “the lack of warming … is a travesty” Trenberth;
“Serreze, M. C., A. P. Barrett, A. G. Slater, M. Steele, J. Zhang, and K. E. Trenberth, The large-scale energy budget of the Arctic, J. Geophys Res., 112, D11122, doi: 10.1029/2006JD008230, 2007.”
and was already looking for an Arctic Sea Ice tipping points in 2005:
“Lindsay, R. W. and J. Zhang, The thinning of arctic sea ice, 1988–2003: have we passed a tipping point? J. Climate, 18, 4879–4894, 2005.”
Can you provide a link to the reliable data source to support your statement that, “ice cap to thin and shrink (approximately 70%+ by volume) throughout the past 3 decades” or do you accept that this erroneous statement has been refuted?
Terra,
Oh, but I do admit it when I make a misteak, always, as both of my regular readers will attest. Everyone makes a mistake on occasion; I admit it – why don’t you? You cannot provide a shred of evidence supporting your CAGW belief system – yet you insist that climate catastrophe is right around the corner. Terra, you’re just diverting the subject away from your evidence-free conjectures.
Travis,
Please provide solid, verifiable, teastable empirical evidence of your conjecture. That’s all I ask. But so far, nada… Because there is no evidence!
Just The Facts says:
May 21, 2011; 7:49 pm
Terra Incognita says: May 21, 2011 at 4:09 pm
“evidence, that runaway global warming is right around the corner.
[snip]
Terra Incognita says: May 21, 2011 at 8:52 pm
This is the second time that someone on this board has imagined things that I never said. This time there’s even a quotation that does not appear in my May 21, 2011 at 4:09 pm post; or any other post for that fact.
Are you paranoid, delusional, a combination thereof? In your comment “Terra Incognita says: May 21, 2011 at 4:09 pm” you wrote: “evidence, that runaway global warming is right around the corner.” to me. I do not care if you did not originate the words, you communicated them to me in a comment and I responded. You are grasping at straws…
This obviously indicates that you “adversaries”, are as unworthy of debate as you’ve claimed I am. If you make up stuff and quotations out of thin air, how likely are you to be paying attention to what I’m actually saying?
You are a perfect example of why the Warmists are losing this argument. You can’t piece together a coherent sentence, much less hold a reasoned debate. How do you expect to convince others of your belief system if you aren’t sure why you believe it?
Just The Facts:
In terms of sea ice volume, there is currently no effective measure of it, thus none of the key Sea Ice Data sources offer it, you can check for yourself:”
[snip]
Smokey says:
May 21, 2011 at 8:50 pm
Please provide solid, verifiable, teastable empirical evidence of your conjecture. That’s all I ask. But so far, nada… Because there is no evidence!
What conjecture? I make no claim aside from pointing out that simply because two episodes have the same theme doesn’t mean they have the same cause. I don’t think that the assertion that whatever caused sea ice to melt at the end of the LIA is a different mechanism than what is causing sea ice retreat today is a particularly radical concept.
Besides that, there’s plenty of empirical evidence showing sea ice extent was higher in the 1800s than it was in the 1970s in the form of naval records, particularly from the British Royal Navy. There are several books (Arctic Labyrinth is one that comes to mind) that provide excerpts of ships logs and personal journals of sailors in the Royal Navy and for the Hudson Bay Company which give the position and thickness of sea ice at various times of year.
As far as recent cycles go, I originally said that the same natural cycles John Daly cited were not likely the same factors that were causing the melt today. I pointed out that Daly asserted that 1995 was the bottom of a natural cycle and that sea ice extent was on the upswing from that point onward. My thought was that if Daly was correct, then the most recent decline in sea ice must have another cause…and yes, I deliberately left the door open for that to be another natural cycle. I am willing, however, to consider other options, so here are some of the options that come readily to mind:
1) John Daly was correct and I am correct, and there is a different mechanism at work then the one John Daly was referencing, be it natural or otherwise (again, I make no claim about that part)
2) John Daly was grossly wrong about 1995 being the minimum year in the cycle, and thus I am also incorrect in my supposition.
3) You are just looking to pick a fight with someone you perceive as a CAGW alarmist, yet who has deliberately stated that he is trying to assume natural causes.
Note that none of these options are mutually exclusive. Now I’ve offered an argument, a place to find some evidence, and a chain of logic. You’ve provided a wholly unneeded lecture on null hypotheses and a supposed “gotcha” moment. Ball’s back in your court.
Just The Facts says:
May 21, 2011 at 7:49 pm
Terra Incognita says: May 21, 2011 at 4:09 pm
evidence, that runaway global warming is right around the corner.
It seems that both of us made a mistake. Mine was inadvertantly snipped that sentence from the last sentence of Smokey’s post (May 21, 12:01 am.) right above the post I was cutting and pasting. For that I apologize.
However, you should have realized by the sentence structure, that it was an amputated statement that did not belong there. If I were the one to have seen that partial sentence, I would have picked up on it right away and asked for clarification.
All you had to do was say something like; “I don’t understand what you mean. You stated no evidence. Did you by any chance leave something out?”
As for the claim that “warmists” (when will you start calling us hotties?) are losing this argument, my experience has shown that most skeptics don’t even understand the argument.
I have given more detailed arguments before only to get the same results. Basic laws of physics are ignored; pseudo facts are created; issues are skirted; pot calling kettle black accusations are thrown around; and there is simply no comprehension or grasp of the issues.
REPLY: Ah Trollobolo aka Villabolo aka “mecago” aka “enelcuno delatuya” aka “gaya hap” from Van Nuys/North Hollywood is back. Proud of your pathetic dishonesty enough to post it at CP as a trophy comment I see. Such lack of scruples from the warmists flouting such dishonesty, you must be so proud. OK, we’ve upped the security just for you. Your IP address trick will no longer work to get around being banned. – Anthony
Tamino’s is the only sensible method of prediction. Look at the trend, and assume it continues. As someone once said, “the race does not always go to the swift, nor the fight to the strong, but that sure is the way to bet”.
From your graph, it looks like one standard deviation is about 1/4 of 1.5Mkm2, or 0.375Mkm2.
Since most of the poll bin widths are 0.1Mkm2, or about 1/4 of a s.d., I’ll take the low tail of 4.5Mkm2 or less.
So, should losers sign their post-September posts with the size of their error compared to their range? E.g., with a 5.0 observation someone whose bid is 5.4 to 5.5 would “I overestimated the ice by 5 times my range.” I’ll sign mine with “I underestimated sea ice by 1.33 standard deviations.”
Terra Incoherent,
After about twenty posts here arguing with everyone without saying anything new, I’m still waiting for evidence, per the scientific method [testable, empirical, measurable], showing that this Arctic cycle is any different from past cycles.
Instead of providing evidence, or admitting you can’t, you always try to re-frame the argument by making completely false comparisons, such as: “The majority of changes, depending on which geologic period you’re referring to, have occured in the time span of tens of thousands; thousands; and rarely hundreds of years. Our climate change has been occuring within decades. The more abrupt an event is, the less able we are to adapt to it.” Even Phil Jones states that the current rise is the same as previous temperature rises. Go argue with him, it’s his data. If you want a longer time frame, see here. [And as tonyb noted recently, this year’s temperature is exactly the same as it was in 1660, 8.84°C, IIRC.]
Finally, the fact that the null hypothesis falsifies your belief in an alternative hypothesis makes further discussion pointless. Your unsupportable belief that “this time it’s different” is not worth arguing about. The null hypothesis is a function of the scientific method [which is why Trenberth is so anxious to change its definition]; it falsifies the CAGW conjecture. The same mindset is behind Post-Normal Science, which is just more pseudo-science mumbo-jumbo.
If you cannot provide empirical evidence within the framework of the scientific method to back up your belief that the current decline in Arctic ice is caused by human activity rather than by natural variability [the null hypothesis], then make your pseudo-science arguments with someone else. If you want to debate with me, stick to the scientific method.
Terra Incognita says: May 21, 2011 at 11:10 pm (Edit)
As you wish. Keep saying that until the Arctic ice cap turns to ice cubes.
Is this because of the icebreakers?…
By the way, anyone who bandies about that old “Misquotation of Trenberth’s Travesty”, and does it by snipping 4 words in mid sentence, is not a serious opponent.
Yes, “at the moment and” are really the substantive parts of that email…
I’m not going to bother with your Gish Gallop of so called “empirical evidence”. Your empirical evidence consists of quoting other skeptics.
I’ve cited dozens of original data sources in this thread, you haven’t cited any.
But I will give you a link to an article exposing the skeptic falsehood of the Trenberth “warming” misquotation.
It is not misquoted, he wrote the words, you can try to spin them however you want, but the quote is what it is.
And please don’t tell me that I’m taking second hand evidence myself because I wrote that article myself.
Yes, that article seems to share the same evidence-less blathering style you spout here…
Terra Incognita says: May 22, 2011 at 1:54 am
It seems that both of us made a mistake.
No, you made a mistake and I responded to it.
However, you should have realized by the sentence structure, that it was an amputated statement that did not belong there. If I were the one to have seen that partial sentence, I would have picked up on it right away and asked for clarification.
All you had to do was say something like; “I don’t understand what you mean. You stated no evidence. Did you by any chance leave something out?”
I am sure this all makes sense somewhere in your clouded relativist head, but to us fact based rational types, you are an incoherent mess…
As for the claim that “warmists” (when will you start calling us hotties?) are losing this argument, my experience has shown that most skeptics don’t even understand the argument.
No, we’ll stick to Warmists and you’ll stick to losing…
I have given more detailed arguments before only to get the same results.
I’ve seen more detailed arguments in cartoons…
Basic laws of physics are ignored; pseudo facts are created; issues are skirted; pot calling kettle black accusations are thrown around; and there is simply no comprehension or grasp of the issues.
Yes, that covers your position and approach almost perfectly, thanks for documenting that for us.
I bet Tamino’s forecast is more accurate than Jo’s forecast.
I also bet this post triggers a flood of submissions from fans of this web page for the 2011 outlook. And then these submissions all turn out to high. And Joe Romm gets to report in November that the Arctic death spiral is even worse than we thought because on average the sea ice outlook predictions were too high.
After 512 votes, WUWT reader average projects a minimum Arctic sea ice extent 2011 to be 5.12 million km^2. Not that this is still stunningly in line with IPCC projections (5.2 million km^2).
Also, WUWT expectations are stunningly out of line with what people investing real money at betting on. Intrade puts a 70 % chance on sea ice minimum dipping below 2007 (4.3 million km^2) this year :
http://www.intrade.com/aav2/trading/contractInfo.jsp?conDetailID=744206&z=1306138389951
So either WUWT readers do not like to put their money where there mouth is, or they simple are venting rethoric in line with an unsubstantiated belief in sea ice recovery.
Any other rational explanations for the irrational voting behavior of WUWT readers would be welcome.
quite a bit of pack ice got moved out of the arctic by that unusual low pressure system near iceland this winter. I seriously doubt the minimum will be significantly higher than last year, or maybe even lower than last year. No matter how warm or cold it might have been up north, when the wind blows the ice south, it melts. I’m voting conservatively, just a tad more ice this year than we had at last year’s minimum.
In other news,
BELUGA is insolvent, perhaps criminal insolvency (“mutmaßlichen Kriminalinsolvenz “).
http://de.finance.yahoo.com/nachrichten/Beluga-Reederei-soll-ddpnews-3770197207.html?x=0
A Beluga ship was in the news in 2009 all over the world as the first making the Noth East passage (though other ships have been doing this before for over 50 years)
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/10/07/the-surprising-real-story-about-this-years-northeast-passage-transit/
[snip]
I apologize that my previous post was considered in violation of the site policy.
Let me summarize the post :
I’m willing to bet with anyone who thinks that the 2011 minimum Arctic sea ice extent will be larger than 5 million km^2.