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
There are 371 (out of 540) people that voted above 5 million km^2 in this poll.
Do none of these want to bet on their vote ?
By the way, I recently came across an interesting graph of PIOMAS Arctic ice volume. It’s not quite ‘sea ice extent’, but nonetheless, once it hits zero, ice extent can’t be much larger than zero either :o|
http://img543.imageshack.us/img543/2145/piomasmonthlyvolumes.png
To me, this looks like a “plunge into the abyss” which is arguably equally impressive to Serreze’s “death spiral”.
Any comments ?
The Dinostratus crystal ball is starting to uncloud. It’s looking like a bad year for icers. It could be worse than 2007.
I forgot to say…..
It’s warmer north of eastern Siberia and the ice is thinner than normal, also the Bering straight is de-iced. Not good.
Dinostratus says:
“Not good.”
Why not? Warmer is better. Cold kills. Warmer means an extra crop every year. Cold means burning fossil fuels to heat buildings. Warmer means millions more acres of viable farmland opened up in Siberia, Mongolia and Canada. Cold means food shortages.
I could go on and on. The problem is that you’re looking at the current natural warming cycle as something bad. It’s not; it is a good thing. Don’t be an Algore tool, think for yourself: warm is good. Summer means barbecue and girls in bikinis. Winter means colds and flu, high utility bills, and short walks for the dog.
The correct response is: “
Notgood.”Smokey, weather warmer Arctic or not is good or not good is a value judgement and a valid political debate. It does not change the science, which clearly shows the Arctic is warming more that the average of the planet. Arctic sea ice will decline as warming continues. The question is, how fast will this go. The IPCC has a conservative estimate, which happens to be in line with WUWT voters this year. I’m glad WUWT finally agrees with the IPCC, but I don’t think it reflects reality. That’s why I offer to bet with anyone predicting more than 5 million km^2 this year. Are you in ?
Dinostratus, you are right. There are many indicators (warm winter, steep volume decline etc) that show that 2011 sea ice extent may be setting a new record, beating 2010 and possibly even dipping below 2007’s extreme minimum. Climate bets seem to confirm that, where Intrade right now puts the chance of breaking 2007’s minimum at close to 70%. In other words, WUWT readers are not putting their money where their mouth is.
Polls on Arctic blogs share the more agressive estimates from Intrade, and it seems that WUWT holds somewhat of a, let’s say, exceptional position on this subject.
September will tell…
Rob says:
May 27, 2011 at 12:28 am
Smokey, …. It does not change the science, which clearly shows the Arctic is warming more that the average of the planet. Arctic sea ice will decline as warming continues.
These are hilarious predictions and it will be lots of fun seeing if they come true – or not!
Rob,
I gave dinostratus facts, not value judgements: “Warmer is better. Cold kills. Warmer means an extra crop every year. Cold means burning fossil fuels to heat buildings. Warmer means millions more acres of viable farmland opened up in Siberia, Mongolia and Canada. Cold means food shortages.” Those are facts. You just don’t like them because they contradict your mistaken belief system that says CO2 and warmth are bad.
Furthermore, the planet has been warming at pretty much the same rate since the Little Ice Age. And accurate sea ice measurements go back only until 1979. Peddle your scare stories at one of the stupid alarmist blogs <–[value judgement]; we appreciate verifiable facts here.
[snip – trollobollo, aka Villabolo but keeps trying new fake names and fake emails anyway (others tried: “mecago” aka “enelcuno delatuya” aka “gaya hap”) – here’s a hint GH, you’ve been banned, and all further attempts from you will be snipped – Anthony]
phlogiston, why are you wasting energy here questioning ice melt and warming ? If actually believed your own words, you would be trading on Intrade. But you don’t. So which statement is “hilarious” now ?
Smokey, “Warmer is better”. If it were that simple, the political debate on climate change would be easy. But again, none of your one-sides value judgements are relevant for the science.
Rob doesn’t like facts that contradict his true belief system, so he mis-labels them as ‘value judgements’. Nevertheless, it is a fact that, just like people, the biosphere prefers warmth over cold. Not many rain forests in Antarctica, are there?
@ur momisugly Rob
“By the way, I recently came across an interesting graph of PIOMAS Arctic ice volume. It’s not quite ‘sea ice extent’, but nonetheless, once it hits zero, ice extent can’t be much larger than zero either http://img543.imageshack.us/img543/2145/piomasmonthlyvolumes.png
To me, this looks like a “plunge into the abyss” which is arguably equally impressive to Serreze’s “death spiral”. Any comments ?”
The worthlessness of PIOMAS has been discussed further above. This page from the Norwegian Nansen site should make you feel better. . .
http://arctic-roos.org/observations/satellite-data/sea-ice/total-icearea-from-1978-2007
It shows a downward trend in the period 1978 – now but not the shocking (and wrong) prediction of your “piomasmonthlyvolumes” link.
J Calvert N,
The “discussion” you refer to is a single opinion post filled with value statements on “how Dr. Zhang voodooed up his garbage model”.
If you find such opinionated posts convincing, then sure, I guess there are people why are easily convinced.
Personally, I prefer to be convinced by scientific data and methods, and attach more value to scientific papers than to opinionated blog commenters.
If you have a link to a study with actual ice thickness measurements, that shows that PIOMAS is way off the chart in terms of volume estimates, then I would be happy to look at it. But if all you have is handwaving to an opinion of a poster on WUWT, then frankly I you may rate yourself on the “worthlessness” of your own statements.
Finally, if you really don’t think PIOMAS is any good, and that thus ice volume and extent are not on their way down, then I would be happy to bet with you. But you would not dare to put your money where your mouth is, now would you, J Calvert N ?
Tamino made a prediction 7 months ago, based on pure statistical analysis.
A million square km either way gives a lot of leeway, but we have a central estimate which concurs with ~5% of voters here. Worth highlighting in this or future posts?
(He was well on the money predicting last year’s September monthly minimum)
As of today, looking at the JAXA graph, sea ice extent is about equal lowest for this time of year.
‘Course, that’s just a blip, not a trend. Last year’s maximum was prolonged and the sea ice extent was right up by the average in April that year, prompting many to speculate a spectacular ‘recovery’, but ended up the 3rd lowest September minimum. Each year is becoming more and more interesting as the ice thins (trendwise, of course, not year-to-year variation).
One interesting facet is that in the last few years, the sea ice (area) has started to correlate with the seasons – that is, the anomalies are lately tending to track the temperature over the twelve months, which suggests greater sensitivity to seasonal perturbation. This strongly suggests, to my mind, a thinning ice pack.
Looks like something killed the website one day before submission date.
barry says:
May 29, 2011 at 1:13 am
You do realize that even he admitted that there was only about a 1/40 chance of him being as close as he was, right? And with a purely statistical approach, that is the proper way to view it.
-Scott
‘Admitted’? Looks to me like he was explaining. Don’t even know why this should be an argument. Tamino is a player in these here debates, he’s on the ‘other side’, frequently responds to WUWT posts, and WUWT posts and commenters talk about him. Seemed like a good idea to get his prediction down for the record, but it’s not a biggie.
Even the more physical approaches can be way out. Yet here we are putting our two cents worth. All part of the fun, no?
“HR says:
May 29, 2011 at 7:56 am
Looks like something killed the website one day before submission date.”
there was an old (long-abandoned) house behind the ARCUS office that caught on fire early sunday morning (around 2:45am-ish local time). the resulting fire ended up setting a nearby telephone pole on fire and it melted the T1 lines providing the internet and phone connections to ARCUS.
being a holiday weekend… the internet provider and telephone company were not able to fix the problem until around noon local time on monday 05/31. (i was honestly hoping for it to be fixed on monday… alas.)
the site should and will remain online from this point on.
just commenting to prevent any conspiracy theories from forming.
email was also down during this time… so if anyone emailed this weekend and got a bounce i’d suggest resending it.
sorry for the inconvenience.
(oops. meant *tuesday* 5/31… my bad.)
barry says :
One interesting facet is that in the last few years, the sea ice (area) has started to correlate with the seasons – that is, the anomalies are lately tending to track the temperature over the twelve months, which suggests greater sensitivity to seasonal perturbation. This strongly suggests, to my mind, a thinning ice pack.
Indeed, since the 2007 super-dip, the past summer minima are decreasing faster and are more variable than any other season. Clearly Arctic sea ice is sensitive to weather changes and has not yet recovered from the 2007 hit.
Your suggestion that this is due to thinning ice is quite profoundly confirmed by the PIOMAS volume estimates over time:
http://img543.imageshack.us/img543/2145/piomasmonthlyvolumes.png
One may wonder if there will be any ‘recovery’ of ice thickness at all, since the trend lines for extent and volume of Arctic sea ice seem to be accellerating (possibly by the albedo effect). The remaining ice (in September) is getting so thin and fragile, that one summer in the near future, the whole thing may just simply melt away under the brutal Arctic summer sun.
Rob says: May 29, 2011 at 12:06 am
The “discussion” you refer to is a single opinion post filled with value statements on “how Dr. Zhang voodooed up his garbage model”.
No, that is a statement of fact.
Personally, I prefer to be convinced by scientific data and methods, and attach more value to scientific papers than to opinionated blog commenters.
You apparently didn’t have an opportunity to review the peer reviewed papers and multitude of quotes I cited above from Zhang and his website. Try reading and comprehending what I’ve posted above and then I am happy to help you to understand why my characterization of Zhang’s method’s and output are accurate.
If you have a link to a study with actual ice thickness measurements, that shows that PIOMAS is way off the chart in terms of volume estimates, then I would be happy to look at it.
As I pointed out above, there is no “study with actual ice thickness measurements” because it is impossible to do so accurately based on current technology. Zhang’s model is invalidated by the weakness of his methods and data that he relies upon.
Finally, if you really don’t think PIOMAS is any good, and that thus ice volume and extent are not on their way down, then I would be happy to bet with you.
You are equivocating. If you want to make a bet on the accuracy of Zhang’s model I’m game…
But you would not dare to put your money where your mouth is, now would you, J Calvert N ?
How about $1000? Do you “dare to put your money where your mouth is”?
OK, “Just the facts”, $ 1000 on what exactly ? On PIOMAS volume numbers, and how they decline ?
http://img543.imageshack.us/img543/2145/piomasmonthlyvolumes.png
Well, since you don’t believe these numbers, then it would be tricky to bet on them, no ?
So instead, why not put $1000 on the NSIDC minimum sea ice extent being 5 million km^2 this year (you win if it’s above that number, I win if it’s below. Anthony has our email addresses, so I suggest he be the judge) ?
The vast majority of the voters here bet above the 5 million km^2 number, so that would be a sure win for you if you agree with WUWT voters.
Are we on ?
Rob says: June 19, 2011 at 1:05 am (Edit)
OK, “Just the facts”, $ 1000 on what exactly ? On PIOMAS volume numbers, and how they decline ?
http://img543.imageshack.us/img543/2145/piomasmonthlyvolumes.png
On the accuracy of the PIOMAS model. I think that the rate of decline since 1979 and PIOMAS’ current state estimate are incorrect.
Well, since you don’t believe these numbers, then it would be tricky to bet on them, no ?
No, in the relative near future we will have accurate measurements of sea ice volume and then the PIOMAS model can be evaluated against observable facts.
So instead, why not put $1000 on the NSIDC minimum sea ice extent being 5 million km^2 this year (you win if it’s above that number, I win if it’s below. Anthony has our email addresses, so I suggest he be the judge) ?
What? Have you read this thread? I’m the guy who’s been arguing that non-CO2 based anthropogenic forces, such as icebreakers, shipping, fishing, cruiseliners, etc., are breaking up the ice, emitting black carbon/soot, discharging wastewater, etc. and this might be driving some of the decline in Arctic Sea Ice we’ve seen over the last 30 years, e.g. here are two interesting icebreaker articles I came across today:
http://www.thearcticsounder.com/article/1125icebreaker_for_shells_oil-spill_response
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/17/world/europe/17arctic.html
I am considering developing an Arctic Ship Transit Tonnage Index to try to identify any correlation with sea ice decline.
I don’t usually get involved in these guessing games of how Earth’s climate will unfold, but taking into account the impact of non-CO2 based anthropogenic forces on the Arctic, I’d guess that the NSIDC’s Arctic Sea Ice Extent minimum will be between 4.9 and 5 Million Sq. Km. However, I’d never waste money on such a guess, I’d rather bet on something that I have confidence in, i.e. the inaccuracy of the PIOMAS model.
The vast majority of the voters here bet above the 5 million km^2 number, so that would be a sure win for you if you agree with WUWT voters.
I don’t care what the majority of voters on WUWT think, consensus is for suckers. I rely on observable facts to develop my opinions.
Anthony has our email addresses, so I suggest he be the judge) ?
From a disclosure perspective, I occasionally write for WUWT, thus I also have our email addresses, but I am confident that Anthony will be an unbiased arbitrator and is thus an acceptable judge.
Are we on ?
Sure, as I said above, I’ll bet you $1,000 on the inaccuracy of the PIOMAS model, i.e. that the rate of decline since 1979, and/or the current state estimate, are off by more than 1,000 Cubic Km. The only question is which PIOMAS model we should use. My vote is for the “New Model Version”:
http://psc.apl.washington.edu/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/schweiger/ice_volume/BPIOMASIceVolumeAnomalyCurrentV2.png
which seems to be based on the “Adjusted” model:
http://psc.apl.washington.edu/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/schweiger/ice_volume/validation/Fig10.png
Let me know if this is acceptable.
Just The Facts
Let me see if I got this straight.
Arctic Sea Ice minimum extent in September 1980 was 7.8 million km^2 or so. Now, you claim that icebreakers, shipping, fishing, cruiseliners, etc., are causing the 2.8 million km^2 (37%) decline since 30 years ago, and that is why you don’t want to bet with me on the minimum extent this year being 5 million km^2 or less.
Instead, you offer to bet that (Sept minimum) Arctic Sea Ice VOLUME declined at least 8,000 km^3 since 1980, but not more than 10,000 km^3.
That are the terms of your bet proposal ?
Rob says: June 27, 2011 at 12:10 am
Let me see if I got this straight.
Arctic Sea Ice minimum extent in September 1980 was 7.8 million km^2 or so. Now, you claim that icebreakers, shipping, fishing, cruiseliners, etc., are causing the 2.8 million km^2 (37%) decline since 30 years ago, and that is why you don’t want to bet with me on the minimum extent this year being 5 million km^2 or less.
No, definitely not straight. Try reading my post from this thread on the impact of wind;
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/05/19/sea-ice-news-call-for-arctic-sea-ice-forecasts-plus-forecast-poll/#comment-664281
along with this one from a subsequent thread;
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/06/18/the-arcus-june-arctic-sea-ice-outlook/#comment-684352
Also, this one that touches on the increase in average temperature over the last three decades;
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/06/25/bring-it-mr-wirth-a-challenge/#comment-688761
which is obviously also a factor. My point is that Earth’s climate system is ridiculously complex with a dizzying array of interdependent and continually evolving variables. Icebreakers, shipping, fishing, cruiseliners, etc., are just one of this cacophony of variables that we must account for if we wish to understand Earth’s climate system.
Instead, you offer to bet that (Sept minimum) Arctic Sea Ice VOLUME declined at least 8,000 km^3 since 1980, but not more than 10,000 km^3.
That are the terms of your bet proposal ?
No, the terms of the bet are as I stated above and I will take your intentional misinterpretation of them as an admission that you don’t have confidence in PIOMAS and thus wisely do not want to bet on its accuracy.
As an aside, I owe you a thank you, as you’ve helped me to organize my thoughts and arguments about PIOMAS and I’ve compiled them into a post that I’ll run on WUWT shortly. Please feel free to join me on that thread if you’d like to discuss further.