JAXA AMSR-E Sea Ice Extent -15% or greater – click to enlarge
I submitted the WUWT ARCUS sea ice forecast today, based on votes received in our poll.
Here is what I submitted via email, and asked for an acknowledgment:
PAN-ARCTIC OUTLOOK – WUWT (acronym for WattsUpWithThat.com)
- Extent Projection: 5.5 million square kilometers
- Methods/Techniques: web poll of readers
- Rationale: Composite of projections by readers, projection bracket with the highest response is the one submitted.
- Executive Summary: Website devoted to climate and weather polled its readers for the best estimate of 2011 sea ice extent minimum by choosing bracketed values from a web poll which can be seen at: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/05/19/sea-ice-news-call-for-arctic-sea-ice-forecasts-plus-forecast-poll/15.64% chose 5.5 million km2 or greater, with 13.09% choosing 5.0 to 5.1 million sq km2 as the second highest vote.
- Estimate of Forecast Skill: none
Outlook submission deadline: Tuesday, 31 May 2011. All Outlooks should be sent to: Helen Wiggins, ARCUS Email: helen@arcus.org
submitted by Anthony Watts
==================================================================
My choice for my own personal vote was 4.9 to 5.0 million square kilometers.
Anthony, I agreed with you but can accept that 5.5 M km2 could be right. Will be interested in the outcome. Keep up the good work.
Interesting comments on sea ice predictions, along with many other failed CAGW predictions:
http://blogs.forbes.com/jamestaylor/2011/05/25/polar-ice-rapture-misses-its-deadline
If any other branch of science had so many wrong predictions, they would be a laughingstock…
…oh, wait…
Wish I had seen this earlier. My prediction is 3.5. The reason for the low extent is the particulate polution from China/India. It has added approx 4w/m2 to the melting of the ice. This is a huge amount and I don’t think it can be overcome.
Also, Fram is still looking like a wide open exit route and the movement of the monitoring stations is showing a quit rapid clip verses normal.
What’s happening with ice mass ? Area/extent is one thing, but the real measure is extent x mass = how much ice is really there.
If they’ll keep those dang ice breakers out of there, I’ll win…………………
I’m saying 5.65 +/-0.15
Just to be a bit contrary.
DaveE.
[Snip. You may not refer to others as “deniers.” Strike two. Read the site Policy. ~dbs, mod.]
Sorry mod, I was quoting. I’ll take that line out.
Smokey, here is the actual Shchneider prediction being quoted in the article you link:
http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2011/05/23/1979-ncar-forecast-sea-level-may-rise-15-25-feet-before-the-year-2000/
And this is what someone on that page commented on it:
As usual, when you check out the facts, it turns out that Schneider said absolutely no such thing. Not even close. Did any of you even bother to read the article. Obviously the author of the peice didn’t. Schneider said that the melting could START by the end of the century. Or to spell it out word for word: “..It’s INITIATION cannot be ruled out by the end of the century..”
While John B is arguing about something said by the reprehensible Steven Schneider [who openly advocated lying to acheive results], maybe John can address the numerous failed alarmist predictions in that same link. But he won’t, because he is engaging in misdirection: “Look over there, a kitten!”
Then he can start again here.
Any other branch of science with so many debunked claims, withholding of data, code and methods, fabricating temp data out of whole cloth, and endless failed predictions would be a public laughingstock among serious scientists. The CAGW crowd finds itself in that unenviable position, and that’s why they’re squealing like stuck pigs.
Reply to John B
he did say the initiation could start by the end of the century … let’s see, we are now 11 years into the new century – and your evidence that, AT THIS TIME, sea levels are reflecting this catastrophe which began 11 years ago are ? ?
looks like another alarmist with egg on his face !
why did you submit the mode and not the median, which was 5.2 MM? the distribution is clearly skewed high based on the bins chosen.
Smokey,
I’m not arguing about it, I’m just pointing your readers at the primary article that your article links to. How is that misdirection? But then you talk about “withholding of data, code and methods, fabricating temp data out of whole cloth”. What’s that got to do with the article on failed predictions? Who’s pointing at the kitten?
Skeptics shouldn’t misrepresent people, however reprehensible. When you get found out, it makes you look dishonest. If your case is good enough, make it without resorting to those tactics. Your argument will be the stronger for it.
John
Steptoe Fan,
Read the article and see what he was atually saying.
Is that big chunk of glacier ice still blocking the Nerez strait? If so, we might gain a bit from last year’s low. Even so, 5.0 would be optimistic.
John B says:
“How is that misdirection?”
It is misdirection to select one minor issue, and disregard the major issues: all of the failed predictions noted in the article.
Explain why each failed prediction wouldn’t falsify the CAGW claims. Or continue your misdirection by nitpicking minor points, which may or may not be accurate, but which do not address the central problem: the numerous inaccurate and falsified predictions made by the purveyors of runaway global warming.
Constantly nitpicking minor issues is the methodology of a crank.
http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/popper_falsification.html
by Karl R. Popper
Popper hits the nail on the head:
I found that those of my friends who were admirers of Marx, Freud, and Adler, were impressed by a number of points common to these theories, and especially by their apparent explanatory power. These theories appear to be able to explain practically everything that happened within the fields to which they referred. The study of any of them seemed to have the effect of an intellectual conversion or revelation, open your eyes to a new truth hidden from those not yet initiated. Once your eyes were thus opened you saw confirmed instances everywhere: the world was full of verifications of the theory. Whatever happened always confirmed it. Thus its truth appeared manifest; and unbelievers were clearly people who did not want to see the manifest truth; who refuse to see it, either because it was against their class interest, or because of their repressions which were still “un-analyzed” and crying aloud for treatment.
…
These considerations led me in the winter of 1919-20 to conclusions which I may now reformulate as follows.
1. It is easy to obtain confirmations, or verifications, for nearly every theory — if we look for confirmations.
2. Confirmations should count only if they are the result of risky predictions; that is to say, if, unenlightened by the theory in question, we should have expected an event which was incompatible with the theory — an event which would have refuted the theory.
3. Every “good” scientific theory is a prohibition: it forbids certain things to happen. The more a theory forbids, the better it is.
4. A theory which is not refutable by any conceivable event is non-scientific. Irrefutability is not a virtue of a theory (as people often think) but a vice.
5. Every genuine test of a theory is an attempt to falsify it, or to refute it. Testability is falsifiability; but there are degrees of testability: some theories are more testable, more exposed to refutation, than others; they take, as it were, greater risks.
6. Confirming evidence should not count except when it is the result of a genuine test of the theory; and this means that it can be presented as a serious but unsuccessful attempt to falsify the theory. (I now speak in such cases of “corroborating evidence.”)
7. Some genuinely testable theories, when found to be false, are still upheld by their admirers — for example by introducing ad hoc some auxiliary assumption, or by reinterpreting the theory ad hoc in such a way that it escapes refutation. Such a procedure is always possible, but it rescues the theory from refutation only at the price of destroying, or at least lowering, its scientific status. (I later described such a rescuing operation as a “conventionalist twist” or a “conventionalist stratagem.”)
One can sum up all this by saying that the criterion of the scientific status of a theory is its falsifiability, or refutability, or testability.
“..It’s [sic] INITIATION cannot be ruled out by the end of the century..”
Never have so few said so little in such a short sentence. Zero content blathering, saying nothing more than: In all probability there’s a possibility we can’t rule out the evidence being consistent with it starting to initiate to commence by the end of the century. Nor can we rule out the possibility that there are pixies on Saturn. Absolute nonsense.
The most popular choice is actually greater than 5.5 and less than 6.0 as I read it therefore that choice had an advantage over 5.0-5.1, therefore I think 5.0-5.1 should have been submitted. I actually think that will be closer as well to the final figure, but not as low as my choice which is about 4.75.
Hopefully they will accept this entry.
Andy
A weighted average could be done, using the center of the brackets as the value for that bracket. (The table will probably lose all the formatting, but the numbers are below.)
votes extent VxE
27 6.25 168.75
86 5.75 494.5
51 5.45 277.95
38 5.35 203.3
50 5.25 262.5
47 5.15 242.05
72 5.05 363.6
37 4.95 183.15
21 4.85 101.85
17 4.75 80.75
19 4.65 88.35
16 4.55 72.8
42 4.45 186.9
27 4.35 117.45
TOTAL __ 2843.9
The average would be 2843.9 / 550 = 5.17. Personally I think either of these (5.5 – 6.0 for the mode, or 5.17 for teh weighted average) are too high.
My own estimate is 4.65 based on some multiple regression analysis for data up thru April ( since May is not over yet and I am working with monthly data). The fact that May seems to be holding to a low value might suggest that an analysis after May data is in might push the value lower.
Fred from Canuckistan, you can find an estimate of the trend in ice volume here:
http://psc.apl.washington.edu/wordpress/research/projects/arctic-sea-ice-volume-anomaly/
Can you differentiate between extent and volume? Will it matter? I suspect extent might be low but a greater volume will remain because of wind action during ice formation last year.
“Constantly nitpicking minor issues is the methodology of a crank.”
Couldn’t have put it better myself!
Sorry, got to go do some real work now…
Oh, but you were referring to me, weren’t you?
Funny how it seems an issue is “minor” only when you are in the wrong. Would Schneider’s “prediction” have been minor if he had actually made it? Would tropospheric hot spot (see other thread) have been minor if I hadn’t called you and Richard on it?
Bait and switch boys, bait and switch. And before you accuse me of that tactic, go back and check who introduced every single issue we have talked about. Clue: it wasn’t me.
L8r
“..It’s [sic] INITIATION cannot be ruled out by the end of the century..”
Never have so few said so little in such a short sentence. Zero content blathering, saying nothing more than: In all probability there’s a possibility we can’t rule out the evidence being consistent with it starting to initiate to commence by the end of the century. Nor can we rule out the possibility that there are pixies on Saturn. Absolute nonsense.”
And now he’s being criticized for NOT making a prediction. Too funny!
Joe Bastardi was thinking somewhere near the 6m mark, I think. Joe! Where are you?
The american models are showing a VERY cold Arctic starting September through December particularly in th Bearing area.