The August SEARCH forecast is now online, a little late this month. As before, I’ll make the poll for WUWT readers available at the end of the month for the final forecast. Personally I think the last WUWT reader poll results ran a bit high, but we didn’t submit the highest forecasts by any measure.
From: ARCUS.org:
Many thanks to all contributors to the August Sea Ice Outlook. We received 21 responses for the Pan-Arctic report (Figure 1), with estimates in the range of just below 4.0 million square kilometers to as high as 5.4 million square kilometers for the September arctic mean sea ice extent. As in the July Outlook, the median value was 4.6 million square kilometers with quartile values of 4.3 and 4.6 million square kilometers, a rather narrow range. All contributions are well below the 1979-2007 climatological mean of 6.7 million square kilometers, and also below all values seen prior to 2007. Thus, the low values observed the last four summers are expected to continue again this September. On a regional level, the long-term downward trend is expected to continue in all regions except the Greenland Sea.
July 2011 set a new record low for the month during the satellite data record despite a significant slowing down of ice loss during the latter half of the month as weather changed to cooler conditions. In August, warmer conditions returned, which combined with a rather diffuse ice cover in the Beaufort and Chukchi seas, has led to a speed-up in the rate of ice loss at the beginning of August, particularly in the Chukchi Sea. Whether or not this rate of ice loss will continue will depend on what the weather does over the next few weeks. However, with approximately a month left in the melt season, it is very unlikely that the September minimum will end up above 5 million square kilometers.
Download High Resolution Version of Figure 1.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
I still guess that it will bottom out close to 5 mill.
As I posted in tips earlier, the DMI graph of mean temperature above 80°N shown on the ice reference page appears to show mean temps have dropped below freezing. The temperature is also noticeably lower than the ERA40 average. What this proves I have no idea, but I thought it was interesting.
Put me down for 5 million also … a guesstimate but one that makes sense to me given arctic temperatures and winds.
Interresting that the other two “public outlook” forcasts are labeled as “statistical”, while ours is labeled as “huristic”, as is the Canadian Ice Service. The color coding system/labels don’t seem very informative to me.
My first guesstimate was 5 M sq.Km (same as Canadian Ice Service predicted), but I’ve since downgraded that to 4.5 M sq. Km. I’d REALLY like to see some discussion of the other factors driving Arctic ice loss (wind, currents, even icebreaker & freighter traffic) vs. just AGW forcings.
Great post and discussion, this is why I like WUWT….we address science that nobody else seems to want to discuss.
It’s not going to be long until it’s gone folks. The future looks dim. Even The Weather Channel was talking about how parts of Fl could be under water by 2100. I feel for future generations.
I have been following the Raw Data from here:
ftp://sidads.colorado.edu/DATASETS/NOAA/
particularly the GO2186 Directory link on that page, and came up with this:
http://www.robertb.darkhorizons.org/TempGr/ARCUSseaice.PNG
Pencil in your own continuation curve to Sept. 21. I come up with 4.7 to 5.0 M Km Sq.
What do you estimate based on the curve extension of the Raw Data?
Brian says:
August 17, 2011 at 11:25 am
It’s not going to be long until it’s gone folks. The future looks dim. Even The Weather Channel was talking about how parts of Fl could be under water by 2100. I feel for future generations.
—–
CRS reply Brian, you sound just like I did back in 1979, when I started studying AGW in earnest.
We don’t know nearly enough to say, definitively, why some of these natural phenomena are occurring. The quick & easy thing, as always, is “blame mankind.” However, there are clearly some natural factors in play which have been understudied by the scientific community.
Don’t worry about the future generations. I used to worry about what life would be like in 2000, and it’s pretty good actually. We can cure many more diseases, life expectancy and quality of life is improving, the environment is FAR better than in the 1970’s (except in China), and science continues to deliver great discoveries.
This is a table of the June, July, August estimates combined.
I show the means and the Low = Mean – uncert.
If No uncertainty was specified, I assumed +/- 0.1.
They are arranged with earliest predictions first.
__________________Mean________________Low (min var 0.1)____
__________________Jun__Jul__Aug______Jun__Jul__Aug
--- Unchanged since June
Peterson et Al____4.0__4.0__4.0______2.8__2.8__2.8
Hamilton__________4.4__4.4__4.4______3.5__3.5__3.5
Stroeve et al_____4.7__4.7__4.7______4.6__4.6__4.6
Morison and Unt.__4.8__4.8__4.8______4.7__4.7__4.7
Anderson__________4.1_______4.1______4.0_______4.0
Grumbine__________4.4________________3.9__________
Tivy______________4.5________________3.9__________
Wang______________5.0________________4.5__________
Egan______________5.6________________5.5__________
---June, July, Aug revisions
Lindsay and Zhan__4.9__4.1__4.1______4.5__3.7__3.7
Folkerts__________4.7__4.2__4.2______4.5__4.0__4.0
Lukovich et al____4.6__4.6__4.5______4.5__4.5__4.4
arbetter et al____4.4__4.3__4.5______4.3__4.2__4.4
Beitsch et al_____4.8__4.7__4.6______3.1__4.2__4.3
Zhang_____________4.1__4.3__4.6______3.5__3.8__4.0
WUWT______________5.5__5.1__5.0______5.1__4.7__4.6
Kauker et al______5.4__5.5__5.2______4.8__5.0__5.1
Canadian Ice Ser__5.0__4.7__4.7______4.9__4.5__4.5
Wadhams___________4.1_______4.0______4.0_______3.9
--- July, Aug
Randles________________4.4__4.3___________4.3__3.5
Meier et al____________4.7__4.5___________4.1__4.1
Blanchard-Wigg.________4.6__4.6___________4.1__4.1
--- July, Aug, only
Liljergren__________________4.6________________3.7
Wu et al____________________4.6________________4.4
Shibata et al_______________5.4________________5.3
Steven Rasey,
You left out the world’s most renowned Arctic ice specialist… R. Gates!
[Do I have to write: /sarc?]
Anyway, there’s an interesting article here about old driftwood being exposed as the ice recedes.
Bloke down the pub says:
August 17, 2011 at 10:46 am
As I posted in tips earlier, the DMI graph of mean temperature above 80°N shown on the ice reference page appears to show mean temps have dropped below freezing. The temperature is also noticeably lower than the ERA40 average. What this proves I have no idea, but I thought it was interesting.
=======================================================
Well, it shows a couple of things we should note.
First and foremost, arctic temps have very little to do with ice loss.
Secondly, there is another issue that we can see…… noting the graph of DMI, we see this is in conflict with GISS’ estimation of arctic temps….. go here, http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/maps/ and play with the app. Here is a map of Jun’s temps….. http://suyts.files.wordpress.com/2011/08/image_thumb2.png?w=646&h=381 You can play with the app to get July’s. (Be sure to change the base period to match DMI’s, 1958-2002 for a true comparison) Compare to http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/meant80n.uk.php
I think we can tell Hansen to put away his pink and red crayons.
I have become a little confused. the ARCUS Sea Ice survey is for the forecast of a measure best represented by which chart on the WUWT Sea Ice Page?
The first one? IARC-JAXA AMSR-E Sea Ice Area (>15%)?
I’ve been saying 4.6 since May (under the rationale of the 2010 El Nino) and now my bet is in the middle of the spread. It’s going to be interesting, and I’d love to be wrong and find it’s 5.0.
Rich.
Meanwhile on the weather front, New Zealand continues to shiver on one of the coldest spells they can remember. Funny how the LW papers have been emphasising what a rare event this is and it has been given the pseudonym of a ‘Polar Blast’. Only thing missing is “from the past” and they haven’t been quite game enough yet to blame it on global warming BUT it is an “extreme event”. Wonder what the tack will be if it happens next year?
http://news.smh.com.au/breaking-news-world/new-zealand-shivers-through-big-chill-20110815-1iu3w.html
Row boat man says it is -2C where they are 077° 28.324N
“MARK’S JOURNEY WITH THE OLD PULTENEY”
http://www.rowtothepole.com/latest-news/
King of Cool says:
August 17, 2011 at 2:25 pm
……Only thing missing is “from the past” and they haven’t been quite game enough yet to blame it on global warming BUT it is an “extreme event”. Wonder what the tack will be if it happens next year?
=================================================================
It will be that they had said all along this would happen….. that hotter weather causes more precipitation and extreme events….. (all the while never addressing the record cold temps occurring) and ignoring the fact they said global warming caused the milder winters just prior to the last two we experienced.
Is what happened here in the States anyway……. look for further advancement of the warmcold theory combined with the drywet principle.
I wonder where the whole 5.5+ crew went to.
4.8. no change from the original prediction. But the right weather and currents.. 4.3. Slush puppy ice. so maybe lucia’s 4.6 .A better thing to look at is the volume.
Nevens place is nice if you want to learn something
Brian says:
August 17, 2011 at 11:25 am
It’s not going to be long until it’s gone folks. The future looks dim. Even The Weather Channel was talking about how parts of Fl could be under water by 2100. I feel for future generations.
Why?
You could lose every square KM of the 4.5 million km of today’s Arctic ice cap – that is, you could drop the September minimum to zero – and not affect the heat absorbed at all. (You would increase the heat LOST by the Arctic waters to evaporation and radiation to space, so temperatures the following autumn would continue decreasing – as they are now and have been every summer ever since 1958 – so global temperatures would decline with increased ice lost.)
Why?
A 4.0 million km^2 Arctic minimum ice extent can be closely approximated as a cap on the globe between latitude 79.2 degrees and the pole (90 north). At minimum ice extent in September, less than 15% of inbound radiation is absorbed – the rest is reflected at these low incidence angles from BOTH ice and open water just about equally. Albedo (color of the ice or water) is irrelevant: BOTH reflect equally the radiation at the actual angles found in the Arctic where the ice is found.
All those thousands of scare CAGW stories about Arctic sea-ice-albedo feedback heating the world? Propaganda. Nothing more than propaganda.
DMI shows below freezing and measurements linked represents increasing number below zero too.
http://www.uni-koeln.de/math-nat-fak/geomet/meteo/winfos/synNNWWarctis.gif
We are almost around the time of year when the Arctic circle above 80N remains below freezing and will continue to decline over the weeks. As we know ice loss still continues, ocean SST’s and currents play a bigger role than atmospheric temperatures.
RACookPE1978 says:
August 17, 2011 at 4:03 pm
It seems counterintuitive, but loss of Arctic Sea Ice might be the 1st stages of a cooling planet. It’s the landmasses of the Temperate Zones that will feel the pain. The Oceans will just have an easier time of it passing warmer waters into the Arctic where the heat energy will be Lost in Space.
I’m still betting on 5.1.
BTW – mean temperature above 80 Deg N is now below freezing. Just a tad earlier than normal.
rbateman says:
August 17, 2011 at 8:49 pm
It seems counterintuitive, but loss of Arctic Sea Ice might be the 1st stages of a cooling planet. It’s the landmasses of the Temperate Zones that will feel the pain. The Oceans will just have an easier time of it passing warmer waters into the Arctic where the heat energy will be Lost in Space.
_____________________________________________________________________________
That’s my thinking too. Very cold air flowing over cold, but ice-free water, is the perfect recipe for heavy snowfall as anyone who lives near the Great Lakes will readily testify.
Were that to happen on an oceanic scale, you have a moisture source with the potential to build ice sheets on the surrounding land masses………
From steven mosher on August 17, 2011 at 3:51 pm:
Yeah, like something about those idiot (C)AGW-deniers who refuse to accept the peer-reviewed consensus view of Climate Science™ who gather over at that moron Watts’ WUWT site. How can so much scientific illiteracy and outright stupidity be so concentrated at one location?
After hanging around there for awhile, I’d be equally served by studying race relations at a New Black Panthers meeting. I want to know how their membership feels about the decimation of the black middle class under Obama’s policies and how blacks were doing better during George W. Bush’s administration. I’m certain my questions will be as warmly received there as my questions on climate science will be over at Neven’s.
I’ve had a few concussions in my life thus have probably have some brain damage, but not enough to make hanging around Neven’s seem a worthy use of my time. I’ll take a pass on that, but you go right ahead Mosh and enjoy yourself over there. ☺
Funny how everybody focuses on air temps.
http://www.oc.nps.edu/~stanton/fluxbuoy/deploy/buoy21_deltaT.html
its like people forget the heat capacity argument