Poll now closed. Results below will be submitted to ARCUS on Sept 1st.
Once again, 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’m late getting this online this month as other things took precedence.
For reference, here’s last months forecast poll and the final submission with all other forecasts from other groups. The final forecast poll you can participate in follows.
The value used by ARCUS in the forecast 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.
Right now the NSIDC value is about 5 million square kilometers.
[ UPDATE: NSIDC’s Julienne Strove from NSIDC writes in comments:
“Note, the NSIDC value today is 4.66 million sq-km.”
Of course NSDIC doesn’t publish the daily values like JAXA does, so we all have to guess since we aren’t privy to that information.
The 5 day average graph is all the public gets. And of course, any estimate is hampered not only by the average, but also by those coarseness of the Y axis. I’ve asked before for NSIDC to publish the daily value and the response has been that they have more important issues to attend to. However, clearly the ARCUS forecast group is watching this number and it is important to the final forecast done by over a dozen groups now. So you think it would be valuable to post the daily data. -Anthony]
Here’s the latest JAXA graph:
JAXA AMSR-E Sea Ice Extent -15% or greater – click to enlarge
Here’s the poll for the ARCUS August outlook, it will run until Sept 1st at midnight PST.
(NOTE/UPDATE: This poll was originally exactly like all the others done over the last several months, but one snarky commenter (the first one) complained that I was a “manipulator” because it didn’t have more lower values. Of course he never bother to ask why or look at the history of the other polls.
I had considered initially adding those lower values for this poll, but then figured I’d be derided for changing the poll and not being consistent with the other polls. In retrospect, I’ll be criticized no matter what I do, so within 20 minutes of it going online, I decided to extend this poll with 0.1 million km increments down to 4.0 million kilometers. I’ve also removed the options for voting 5.5 to 6.0 (which existed in prior polls) since they are outside the current bounds of possibility based on previous September history. – Anthony
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Henry@barry
Pity, that you have not learned anything
obviously you are not interested in learning
In summary, what I have found:
1) The statement that an increased greenhouse effect due to the increase in CO2 causes any -or any extra – warming of earth is wrong. 2) Most of the observed warming of the planet is due to natural causes, i.e. the sun shone a bit more brightly and/or there were less clouds. 3) I am saying that more carbon dioxide is good as it causes more greenery. 4) It is the increase in vegetation observed mostly in the northern hemisphere that causes some additional warming on top of the natural warming as it is trapping some of the extra heat…..It is caused by man (wanting more trees and gardens) and by a little more heat and more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.
http://www.letterdash.com/HenryP/more-carbon-dioxide-is-ok-ok
@Anders Valland says:
September 1, 2011 at 5:36 am
Guys, bets are off. http://www.barentsobserver.com/gazprom-ready-to-melt-icebergs.4953429-116321.html No wonder the ice is melting faster than ever
——
CRS Reply
….and this “water-proof coat” will be comprise of what, exactly??
steven mosher says:
September 1, 2011 at 12:12 am
“Making out like someone is a fool if a prediction isn’t correct is just absurd.”
Wise advice. Remember that when we talk about Hathaway on sunspots and the IPCC on warming, and serreze on the death spiral. Allowing people to make mistakes is something we seem to have forgotten.
I’m perfectly willing to let people indulge in whatever folly turns their crank. I only get excited when they start to demand that the world transform itself in incredibly destructive ways on the basis of those highly dubious follies.
So this is a race where you can relay bets 10 metres from the finish line.
The Watts up with that horse was running second last in this race.
Time to call for a stewards enquiry.
John from CA says:
August 31, 2011 at 5:09 pm
John from CA says:
August 31, 2011 at 5:09 pm
Dave Wendt says:
August 31, 2011 at 4:05 pm
————–
An interesting follow up question, is there any evidence multi-year ice prior to 1979 in the Arctic was older than 15-20 years? If no, the question is solved?
I’ve posted that link to R & W a number of times, mostly to point out that what has happened in the Arctic over that last 20-30 yrs can be accounted for largely without recourse to anything anthropogenic. AFAIK the authors have made no projections on long term developments into the future.
As to the age of the ice prior to the sat era, there is a piece at Rigor’s site
http://seaice.apl.washington.edu/
Look in the sidebar under Some Research Highlights for Arctic Perennial Sea-Ice Reduction
He discusses data back to the 50s based on Drift-Age Model derived from buoy data.
I recall reading a piece several years ago which claimed ice had drifted up on the coast of the UK back in those days which had tags placed by researchers in the Arctic which indicated it was much more than a decade old, but I never was able to confirm that story.
Not that is prog’s anything but the “North Pole” cam is now depicting the melt ponds in whatever area it’s now in nearly frozen over. Also, there has been recent (perhaps even ongoing) snow fall. And obviously, night is starting to fall at that latitude. A few more weeks then it will all go dark.
Not that IT prog’s anything …
FORECAST THROUGH MONDAY…WEST OF 155W. THE ICE WILL MOVE TO THE
NORTH 15 TO 30 NM THROUGH FRIDAY THEN MOVE 15 TO 30 NM TO THE SOUTH
SATURDAY THROUGH MONDAY. THE NET RESULT WILL BE LOW CONCENTRATIONS OF
ICE IN THE FORM OF STRIPS MOVING INTO PRESENT AREAS OF OPEN WATER.
Of course I realize that in the lower longitudes net retreat is still going on and may continue to go on for a while.
Henry,
it’s not the sun.
As you prefer to use only temperature data post 1975, here is a plot of the solar index and global temperature from 1976 to 2008. The time period is selected with the solar cycle phase equivalent at both ends of the time series so that the trend derived is not an artefact of the phase. The sun has been trending cooler while the globe has warmed.
Regarding our past conversations, I found a number of assumptions you worked with were completely untenable – like positing that temperature records from a handful of weather stations (less than 10) faithfully represent global temperature trends. We were unable to come to mutual ground for a useful discourse, though we both tried as best we could. I am sure that situation has not changed. I wish you well.
Looks like Tamino’s updated best estimate is 4.17 +/- 0.4 million km^2. That’s ~5/3 odds of a new record. He estimated 4.22 million km^2 last month, IIRC. He later says the odds are “about 50-50” for a new record.
http://tamino.wordpress.com/2011/09/01/arctic-sea-ice-death-spiral-continues/
Considering both of our methods are statistical, I find it interesting that he’s predicting so much lower than I am, with my value being near the top end of his 95% conf interval. I’m guessing that’s because he’s using NSIDC monthly average values whereas I’m using JAXA daily data.
Also Interesting…no update from Zinfan94 who said that we could see 2007’s record beaten by Sept 1…that date has come and we’re still above it…
-Scott
Scott,
thanks for pointing out the new Tamino post. I don’t think he is making the prediction you cited – that was only half way through the post. He concludes;
As he doesn’t give a final figure, I’d guess that his central estimate is equal to the NSIDC 2007 September minimum, 4.3 million sq/km.. But I’ll ask and see if he quantifies.
Maybe, but there are regulars who don’t mislike WUWT who have made predictions on this thread that seem unreasonably high considering the extent nominated when the article was first posted (5 mil sq km). See particularly the bottom few quotes below.
“I’m sticking with 4.9 to 5.0”
“I agree”
“5 – 5.1 Same as I have guessed/voted all season. It’s cold up there”
“I am going with 5.3 to 5.4”
“My guesstimate and vote is 5.4 to 5.5 Million km2”
These people seem genuine to me. If one reflects on the amount of wishful thinking that goes on in climate blogs, maybe not so many of those votes were duplicitous.
Of course, shame on anyone who may have jigged the vote. But that’s a perennial problem with online polls.
REPLY: You misunderstand. I don’t disagree with any of those statements above as being disingenuous,(though they are misguided) my issue is only with the cluster of votes at the very top of the vote scale. -Anthony
Henry@barry
Why don’t you also analyse a handful (15= 3xhandfuls?) weather stations and see if you can prove me wrong??
http://www.letterdash.com/HenryP/henrys-pool-table-on-global-warming
I am sure you donot want to come to a different conclusion?
Like I always say: there are none so blind as those who donot want to see:
(1) maxima rising faster, clearly pushing up means and minima – anyone with first year stats can do the same sums
(2) “global” warming is not global – note the difference between NH and SH
(3) some of the added heat (from the sun) is trapped in the NH due to increased vegetation
http://www.letterdash.com/HenryP/more-carbon-dioxide-is-ok-ok
I am off for my holiday to the arctic to get firsthand reports.
I’ve enjoyed everyone’s observations. I expected a recovery, so I freely admit I was wrong.
There. That wasn’t so hard, was it?
The next step is to look back over the reasons I had for making an incorrect guess, and seeing the flaws in my reasoning.
That is a little harder, but great fun. You learn, and to learn is a joy. It is only when the ego gets involved, (or the wallet,) that being wrong hurts to a degree where the joy is replaced by less pleasant stuff.
Among things I’ve learned is that much of the worry about albedo-loss is needless fret. By September the sun is so low it glances off the water surface and bounces back towards outer space.
Open water loses heat to outer space more swiftly than ice-covered water.
Mild temperatures at the pole indicate colder temperatures to the south, as arctic air is not bottled up by the jet stream, and instead arctic outbreaks and polar outbreaks allow cold air to drain far south of the pole.
Air melts much less ice than the currents below. When air does melt much ice, it is because it blows ice south to warmer waters. The focus should be on the transport of warmer waters to the north.
I would like to understand why some branches of the gulf stream’s northernmost extensions wander to and fro, sometimes to the north and sometimes to the south. Is this a regular cycle or does it occur in a random manner?
I would like to better understand the process of injections into the thermohaline circulation. My understanding is that it is dependant on refreezing. Would this mean that greater ice-melt (and re-freezing) would create greater injections into the thermohaline flow?
These injections occur at a variable rate, like a heart beat. If increased melting (and refreezing) “increase the pulse,” how do these irregularities effect thermohaline circulation downstream?
Due to Hansen and Gore vetoing Bill Gray’s desire to study thermohaline circulation in the 1980’s, we know less than we might have, which allows thinkers like myself to imagine all sorts of positive and negative feedbacks, unencumbered by the botheration of facts.
To sit and theorize is a joy. Data will tell me some of my theories are incorrect. However being corrected is also a joy, for Truth is Beauty.
Truth is only a pain when people are somewhat maddened by their thirst for power, wealth, and a fatter ego.
Rod Everson said Regarding the 5.3-5.4 and above 5.4 discussion, there’s probably two things going on. First, no doubt some anti-WUWT contributors are trying to mess with the poll. It would be amazing if they weren’t given the nature of the web.
Second, this is a monthly average we’re being polled on. Those who, like Pamela Gray perhaps, think that we will get an early freeze-up might think that 4.6 or so will be the low but that by mid-September we will be back over 5.0 and headed higher, so that a 5.3 average is possible, as it is.
I agree Rod. WUWT readers are known to vote unrealistically high. If I recall the May projection where a whopping 113 voted above 5.5 million (20% of the total). And even in the June projection, 54 votes above 5.5 million (7 % of the total) even all through May and June 2011 was below the record 2007 graph.
Reasons why WUWT voters vote unrealistically high vary, and often seem emotional rather than rational (like the poster on the May projection stating “Just to be a bit contrary”), but reasons are stated. In the case of Pamela, she indeed was pretty clear as to why she expected a 5.3-5.4 minimum and I think you summarized her opinion very well.
Which is why I was surprised to Anthony’s rather extreme statements. As I tried to post before
http://img11.imageshack.us/img11/2848/wuwtsept1shot.jpg
(but somehow got moderated out)
Anthony, your readers cast their vote, and many of them (like Pamela) have the courage to state their reasons for their vote. I feel that it is at least inappropriate for you to judge your own readers as wanting to screw up the poll or picking the highest number in hopes that will be the top vote getter.
barry says:
it’s not the sun.
As you prefer to use only temperature data post 1975, here is a plot of the solar index and global temperature from 1976 to 2008
Henry@barry
Sorry, slight misunderstanding. When I mean the sun I mean more W/m2 or more sunshine hours. Natural causes. Could be that the sun shone a bit brighter or that there have been less clouds.
Take your pick.
If your graph is correct it would be less clouds.
On the other hand, the down going trend in the sun could affect the creation of clouds?
Again, take your pick.
Caleb…have a look at this paper on the effect of lunar gravity on Artic ice formation. A 74yr cycle is involved which is beginning to bottom out – so I expect to see some increases in ice cover over the next few years.
http://icejms.oxfordjournals.org/content/63/3/401.full
Anthony, I understood you. One of the genuine commenters put his vote in at the top figure (5.4 – 5.5). That’s one out of 28 as of this post. But look further down, 22 people voted for 5.1 – 5.2, and fully 40 people voted for 5.0 – 5.1. These aren’t likely votes to jig the system, but they are pretty much equally misguided as the commenter who voted 5.4 – 5.5. I.e, the likelihood of these being the final values for September are next to zero. When you first posted you nominated current extent at 5.0 mil sq km. This was with a couple weeks left of melt. Anyone who voted 5.0 and up was just thinking wishfully. I suggest that whatever made 76 people vote for September sea ice to finish up between 5.0 and 5.4, it’s quite possible the same thing made many or all of the 28 people vote for 5.4 to 5.5. There’s a deal of irrational voting already from 5.0 to 5.4 – why shouldn’t that irrationality extend to the highest extent?
Nothing to be done, of course. I’d lop off the top tier as well, because it’s silly. But I would include 5.3 to 5.4, because at 4 votes, those are probably genuine responses, and I’d want to reflect the readership more than my own preferences – that was the criteria this poll started with, and should be consistent. I wouldn’t assume that most of the 28 in the top tier are vexatious voters. We know that at least one person means it. I think it’s just as likely pro-WUWT people voted for the top tier because they don’t like the idea of diminished sea ice. IOW, I think there may be plenty of people who are ‘misguided’.
barry says:
September 1, 2011 at 10:42 pm
Hi barry,
I did mention his 50-50 comment in the third sentence of my post. I see you’ve confirmed that as 4.3 million km^2 in his comments section. So whoever has read my above post, please disregard it and change the 4.17 number to 4.3. Though I do wonder why he chose 4.3 when his analysis of NSIDC data gave 4.17 and he’s consistently used NSIDC in the past…
-Scott
Pole cam depicts an ongoing dump. I’d imagine the now frozen or nearly frozen melt ponds in that view will be covered soon by new snow.
SteveSadlov, yes you are right. Since the radiative balance turns negative in the Arctic this time of year, top-freeze (of melting ponds), and subsequent snow deposit is unavoidable. Note that snow and freezing melting ponds only occurs where ice is above the surface, and will show up as increased concentration. Although this results in increase SIA (sea ice area) (and it already did) it will leave SIE (sea ice extent) relatively unaffected. SIE is going to be determined by bottom-melt, largely caused by wasm ocean water, which will knock out more ice until sea surface temperatures reduced so much that open ocean starts to freeze over in a week or two. And that will be the minimum.
barry said I wouldn’t assume that most of the 28 in the top tier are vexatious voters. We know that at least one person means it. I think it’s just as likely pro-WUWT people voted for the top tier because they don’t like the idea of diminished sea ice. IOW, I think there may be plenty of people who are ‘misguided’.
I agree that many people on WUWT seem to be misguided or simply post a number based on their emotional state, rather than trying to “screw up the poll” as Anthony suggests. Multiple reader comments that posted in the unrealistic 4 upper brackets from Anthony’s past 3 posts on this poll attest to that.
One reason for this may be that Anthony put the realistically most likely 2011 outcome (4.4 – 4.5 million km^2) bracket in the one but last slot in the poll, with the (eventually chosen, and very unrealistic) bracket of 5.0-5.1 being right in the middle.
Not surprising that this middle bracket is very close to Anthony’s personal vote of 4.9 to 5.0 million square kilometers, which is also very highly biased and equally unlikely to be realized.
So maybe readers are not the only ones ‘misguided’.
Rob wrote One reason for this may be that Anthony put the realistically most likely 2011 outcome (4.4 – 4.5 million km^2) bracket in the one but last slot in the poll, with the (eventually chosen, and very unrealistic) bracket of 5.0-5.1 being right in the middle.
I’m sorry guys. I was looking at the end-of-July post when I compiled this. In this latest (end-of-August) post, the bracket with the most votes is currently 4.5-4.6 which is definitely more realistic.
I’m glad that WUWT readers came to their senses.
I’m not sure why the arctic ice is so important. What about doing a poll on predicting the antarctic ice?
Rob says:
September 2, 2011 at 10:50 pm
I think Anthony’s comments on the dilemma of keeping the poll options consistent, or altering them when the situation changes, are perfectly reasonable. Any choice he made would have attracted critics.