There was a lot of controversy leading up to this moment, as we covered previously on WUWT where NSIDC put a new trailing average algorithm online with no notice, and bungled the climatology in the process, needing a fix. As has been the case before when NSIDC data goes wonky it was those bloggers of “breathtaking ignorance” who spotted the issue before NSIDC did and brought it to their attention.
Here’s today’s graph: (NSIDC publishes a day behind)
http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/daily_images/N_timeseries.png
Now, it should be pointed out that it hasn’t crossed the normal line, and it only touches it because of the line width, it is still ever so slightly below normal according to Cryosphere Today.
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/seaice.anomaly.arctic.png
I noted yesterday that the difference was -0.070, so it has nudged away from the normal line a bit. This is supported by the NORSEX data, enlarged here:
http://arctic-roos.org/observations/satellite-data/sea-ice/observation_images/ssmi1_ice_ext.png
Clearly though, by the NORSEX data, Artic Sea Ice was briefly above the 1979-2006 monthly average, but is now headed back down. NSIDC’s trailing average will filter out this short above normal excursion, and I predict that it will turn slightly away from the normal line tomorrow or the next day.
Overall though, we have a pretty full north polar ice cap, especially in the Bering Sea, which has seen record high extents this year. This is encouraging:
http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/daily_images/N_bm_extent_hires.png
All of this bears watching at the WUWT Sea Ice Reference Page but we’ll soon be into the ho-hum period when all of the years data converge on the way to the minimum sometime in September. While we have near normal extent now, that doesn’t always translate into near normal minimums.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
wmconnolley,
From your taunting you give the impression that you have no understanding of what climate or climate change mean.
If we have a warm winter or a cool summer — that’s weather. If the arctic sea ice anomaly increases or decreases over last years summer low — that’s weather. Climate is long term. Betting on what the weather is going to do makes as much sense as playing Russian roulette.
John M says:
April 27, 2012 at 5:28 pm
William,
Actually, Smokey’s offer was perfectly justifiable. You originally said “So, who wants to bet that the summer minimum won’t be substantially below “normal” this summer?”
I’ll define “significant” as deviation by more than 2 sigma, which is not outside the bounds of reasonableness.
Here is a University resource that defines “substantially below” as:
“Substantially below is usually defined as a discrepancy of more than 2 standard deviations”
http://www.mcburney.wisc.edu/information/documentation/lddisdocguide.php
So, it looks like the bet is on. Smokey has accepted Connelley’s offer of a bet, and wagered $100.
An offer made (Connelley)and accepted (Smokey) is a legally binding contract. The terms are clear. More than 2 standard deviations below the average and Connelley wins. Anything else and Smokey wins.
Interestingly, the original source for:
“Substantially below is usually defined as a discrepancy of more than 2 standard deviations”
is taken from:
Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Health Disorders IV-TR (2000)
Seems appropriate somehow…
RE
kbray in california says:
@ur momisugly April 26, 2012 at 8:54 am
A woman in Switzerland tried “zero carbon use”.
Check out her end results:
http://www.nydailynews.com/life-style/health/swiss-women-dies-giving-water-food-thought-live-sunlight-article-1.1067359
——————
Astonishing. What the human mind is capable of. I imagine she would be up for ‘Darwin Award’ for removing herself from the gene pool in such an audacious way – and with such flare! (excuse the pun)…
I’m looking forward to actually SEEING the incredible sea ice extent in the Bering Sea this season on Deadliest Catch. Should make for a VERY interesting season! I’m impressed with the fact that the Bering Sea ice is still so far south this far into April.
Leif Svalgaard says:
April 26, 2012 at 8:41 am
“My usual gripe about this: the ice extent for yesterday shows ice cover in the sea around the Danish islands. There is no ice there now: http://www.itameriportaali.fi/html/icef/icemap_c.pdf”
I remember I saw a discussion about this. If I correctly remember there is a warning that such sensor error might appear in shallow waters and/or missing waves and is discounted for sea ice surface. Am too lazy now to search for discussion and link but there is an explanation.
Of course one can reject all data based on some errors – as one could do with all climate data or any other data – it will never be 100% accurate.
Correction,
Average is 4.5 sq km. Misread the hashmarks and grids.
Standard Deviation is the same. (Doesn’t change the reasonableness of Smokey’s offer.)
For the record, here are the Sept. minima values I extracted from the plot:
1979 5.3
1980 5.5
1981 5
1982 5.2
1983 5.4
1984 4.6
1985 5
1986 5.4
1987 5.3
1988 5.1
1989 4.8
1990 4.6
1991 4.5
1992 5
1993 4.4
1994 4.8
1995 4.4
1996 5.2
1997 4.9
1998 4.3
1999 4.2
2000 4.1
2001 4.6
2002 4
2003 4.1
2004 4.3
2005 4.1
2006 4
2007 2.9
2008 3
2009 3.5
2010 3
2011 2.9
Bill Jamison says:
April 28, 2012 at 1:46 am
I’m looking forward to actually SEEING the incredible sea ice extent in the Bering Sea this season on Deadliest Catch. Should make for a VERY interesting season! I’m impressed with the fact that the Bering Sea ice is still so far south this far into April.
I’ll be surprised if there would be much to see, the crab fishing season is October -January. In any case I’d expect the extent to pull back a lot over the next week or so, and a move away from the ‘normal’ line. Statistically the extent in April is a poor indicator of the fall minimum anyway.
The always astute Ferd Berple comments:
“Actually, Smokey’s offer was perfectly justifiable…. I’ll define ‘significant’ as deviation by more than 2 sigma, which is not outside the bounds of reasonableness… So, it looks like the bet is on. Smokey has accepted Connelley’s offer of a bet, and wagered $100.”
And for a good cause, too. WUWT doesn’t get Big Oil money, so it must rely on contributions from readers. Ferd continues:
“An offer made (Connelley) and accepted (Smokey) is a legally binding contract. The terms are clear. More than 2 standard deviations below the average and Connelley wins. Anything else and Smokey wins.”
Really, WUWT wins in either case. Of course I will pay if I the planet says that I was wrong. That is a given. I would never welsh on a bet.
It remains to be seen if Connelley is a Welch name!
Looking at John M’s numbers I agree with his calculations. The norm is 4.47 and the std is 0.74. However it may be worthwhile to review the data as 2007 appears the same as 2011, which doesn’t appear to match the graphs?
If John M’s numbers are correct then the bet would be Connelley wins if the minimum is below 2.98, else Smokey wins.
Interestingly, I did a straight line projection on the minimum, and it has the Arctic ice free in 2060. If you do the same in the Antarctic, then the whole world will be covered in ice eventually.
There is clear evidence from the past that changes in the earth’s magnetic field can significantly affect climate. (hat tip to Leif). We know that the earth’s magnetic field is changing more rapidly as CO2 is increasing.
Thus, using the IPCC’s climate science methodology, we must conclude that CO2 is changing the earth’s magnetic field and thus changing the climate. (Since we can’t think of what else can be causing the accelerating rate of change in the earth’s magnetic field).
Thus, with the accelerating rate of change in the earth’s magnetic field as a result of carbon pollution, it could well be that I’m spot on with both projections. Anyone care to bet? Arctic ice free in 2060. World covered in ice eventually.
After 2060, the projections are that the Arctic sea ice minimum will go negative. There will be anti-ice in the Arctic, which will consume an equal volume of positive ice, finally releasing the missing heat that Trenberth and Hansen have long been seeking. The modern day equivalent of Amundsen and Scott in their heroic quest for the anti-pole.
Fred,
Yes, it would be nice to find the full 33 year data in one place. That blended sea ice area plot was the best one I could find for “digitizing” the data since 1979.
I see that Connolly is still trying to put money on that fool’s bet. You seem to think I believe the ice has recovered, or will. Don’t paint me with fool’s color. It hasn’t “recovered” from anything. But it does appear to be trending in the opposite direction than the way you think it is going. If you think extent is currently entrenched in a downward spiral, stop looking at the graph while standing on your head.
For the record, I believe in the rather unpredictable nature of natural weather and climate variations, IE the odd random weather pattern, long term weather pattern changes, etc. And I wouldn’t bet on what will happen tomorrow for a penny. That you would, speaks volumes about you, not the people who refuse to play a fool’s game.
However, I can and do make predictions. I predict that the summer melt will be less than spectacular and will not further the argument that the Arctic is on a death spiral. It will either bolster the idea that the death spiral is on a hiatus, or it will continue the slow trend back to average.
ferd berple says:
April 28, 2012 at 8:46 am:
“It remains to be seen if Connelley is a Welch name!”
Clever and funny!
[And Pamela, I didn’t take the bet to predict the future. I did it to call Connolley’s bluff. It’s a guy thing.]
Yeah, I figured. Kinda like a double dare or king of the hill. Definitely a guy thing. And rather fun to watch.
> Pamela Gray says: However, I can and do make predictions. I predict that the summer melt will be less than spectacular and will not further the argument that the Arctic is on a death spiral. It will either bolster the idea that the death spiral is on a hiatus, or it will continue the slow trend back to average.
Thats nice, but its just words, not numbers. It is in no way verifiable. The words you’ve used – death spiral, spectacular, slow trend – can’t be converted into a yes/no criterion. We’ve had two suggestions so far: that the bet be about whether there is a new record or not – I’ not interested in betting on that, because we don’t disagree enough. Or mine of here where I’ve offered “half-way between the long-term mean, and 2010, as the boundary?” You would win if the ice cover was above that. Interested?
RE: “Ric Werme says:
April 27, 2012 at 4:36 pm”
Sorry, Rick. That post by Willis actually got me steamed to a degree where I whipped off a counter article and submitted it here. I suppose it was fairly badly written, for it wasn’t printed.
My main point was that the Year Of Eighteen Hundred And Froze To Death was very real, for my family at least. Sometimes I think science has a blind spot, when it comes to so-called “lore.” Science will quibble over .001 th of a degree, as long as it is old records on yellowing paper in a musty file cabinet, but when it comes to a country bumpkin stating what he heard from a grandfather, they look down their noses.
I think they miss a lot. My family name has blotched the fair face of New England for 384 years, all within a sixty mile radius of where I now live, but many scientists would rather squint at a computer screen than listen to a garrulous old geezer.
This is not to say the young men of my family didn’t get wanderlust and sail off on clippers, but they always seemed to come home in the end. I myself ran away to California for a couple years. One odd thing about that place was that it was hard to find anyone my age who was actually born there. The entire state seemed to comprise of run-aways. There was zero tradition.
I nearly landed a good job at a California computer place. That would have put me ahead of the curve, however the place went belly-up a few days before I was to start working. (Apparently the owners got too rich and invested in cocaine.)
Instead I ran away from the run-aways, and wound up on the Navajo Reservation for four years. That put me behind the curve, when it came to computers, but did teach me to respect traditions, (though with a grain of salt.)
In any case, when it comes to predicting the weather, who do I trust? An old farmer, or the computer ten-day-forecast?
One thing I noticed that summer after Pinatubo was that, though there was no mid-summer frost, my tomatoes simply stayed green. And the old lore about the summer of Eighteen-hundred-and-froze-to-death mentions the same sort of weakness-of-the-sunlight. It was a problem above and beyond the frost, back in those days, because in those days a lot of foods were sun-dried.
This is not to say weather patterns were not knocked out of kilter in 1816, and there wasn’t melting up at the edge of the arctic. However anyone who suggests it wasn’t colder in New England spends too much time looking at numbers, and not enough time listening to garrelous old geezers.
“At its maximum extent on March 18, Arctic sea ice extent was within two standard deviations of the average, a measure that scientists look at as an estimate of the natural range of variability for the data.”
Bold added for emphasis.
http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/
Pamela,
I double dog dare Billy to stop being a chicken and a welcher. I took his bet, now he’s backing and filling. Making excuses. He doesn’t have the huevos to play fair. All hat ‘n’ no cattle. All talk and no action. Had his fingers crossed behind his back the whole time. He welched: now he’s “not interested” in being a stand-up guy. We “don’t disagree enough” is his latest excuse. But the bet was not about disagreeing, that’s just weasel talk; Connolley is simply weaseling out.
Several commentators have pointed out much the same thing, in their own words. And it’s only $100, which I’m fully prepared to pay if I lose. [And 2007 was not any kind of a “record”, either. The geological record goes back way before the Holocene.]
I took Billy’s bet, but now he’s “not interested” in keeping his end of the wager. He’s chickening out. I guess $100 is too scary for an unemployed Welchman.
John M,
From your link:
Arctic sea ice extent for March 2012 was the 9th lowest in the satellite record, but the highest since 2008 and one of the highest March extents in the past decade.
Cherry-picking. The satellite era began in 1971. And University of Bremen records go back much farther, with routine on-site reports. Also, Tony Brown [tonyb] has compiled really extensive historical documentation of Arctic sea ice extent.
I might take NSIDC seriously if they didn’t post alarming charts like this. What they don’t show is the contrast between the poles. The Antarctic has much more ice than the Arctic, so the NSIDC is propagandizing with their scary looking chart.
Hey Smokey,
Just pointing out that 2 standard deviations thing again…all sanctioned by the NSIDC.
wmconnolley says:
Thats nice, but its just words, not numbers.
The words were your own.
quote:
wmconnolley says:
April 27, 2012 at 12:28 am
I offered to bet against anyone who thought the sea ice this summer wouldn’t be substantially less than normal.
unquote:
You make the offer. The terms are clear: “substantially less than normal” is 2 STD below the NORM. Smokey accepted for $100. An offer made and accepted, that is a legal contract.
Technically, the bet is on and there is nothing further to decide until the results are in.
John M says:
April 29, 2012 at 7:07 am
“At its maximum extent on March 18, Arctic sea ice extent was within two standard deviations of the average, a measure that scientists look at as an estimate of the natural range of variability for the data.”
Looking at the site, they use 1979-200 to compute the average and deviation. That is a cheat. The data from 2000-2012 must also be included in the computation of average and deviation, otherwise their methodology implies that natural variability ended in 2000. Faulty statistics.
Smokey says:
April 29, 2012 at 2:45 pm
I guess $100 is too scary for an unemployed Welchman.
Come Sept if you win there are always bragging rights. willie the welcher sung to the tune of minnie the moocher? You are named in the 2nd and 5th verses.
Folks, here´s a story about Minnie the Moocher
She was a red hot hoochie-koocher
She was the roughest, toughest frail
but Minnie had a heart as big as a wha-a-le
She messed around with a bloke named Smoky
She loved him though he was cokey
He took her down to Chinatown
He showed her how to kick the gong around ()
She had a dream that the King of Sweden
He gave her things that she was needin´
He built her a house of gold and steel
A diamond car with platinum wheels
he gave her his townhouse and his racing horses
Each meal she ate was a dozen courses
She had a million dollars worth of nickels and dimes
she sat around and counted them all a million times
Now Min and Smokie, they started jaggin’
They got a free ride in a wagon
She gave him money to pay her bail
But he left her flat in the county jail
Poor Min met old Deacon Lowdown
He preached to her that she ought to slow down
But Minnie wiggled her jelly roll
And Deacon Lowdown yelled, “Lord save my soul!”
They took her where they put the crazies
Now poor Min’s kicking up those daisies
You’ve heard my story this is her song
She was just a good gal, but they done her wrong
Poor Min, Poor Min, Poor Min.
ferd berple,
Ah, that brings back memories!