WUWT has participated for the last two years, and I’ll post up a poll for the WUWT submission tomorrow. In the meantime, you can get a look at the current state of the Arctic Sea Ice at the WUWT Sea Ice Reference Page.
Japan Graphic: Aerospace Exploration Agency (JAXA) – International Arctic Research Center (IARC) – Click the pic to view at source
2 May 2013
Call for 2013 Sea Ice Outlook Contributions
June Report (Based on May Data)
Study of Environmental Arctic Change (SEARCH)
Pan-Arctic and Regional Outlook submission deadline: Friday, 7 June 2013
——————–
The Study of Environmental Arctic Change (SEARCH) Sea Ice Outlook (SIO)
organizers are pleased to announce the launch of the 2013 SIO season.
The SEARCH SIO is an international project that provides a monthly
synthesis of estimates of the September arctic sea ice minimum:
http://www.arcus.org/search/seaiceoutlook
We are now 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 submission deadline is
Friday, 7 June 2013 and all submissions should be sent to Helen Wiggins,
ARCUS, at helen@arcus.org. Submission guidelines are below.
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). Please also include any
relevant information on ice thickness (or age), if available.
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. Error estimates
are included in the summary bar chart of outlook estimates, as
appropriate.
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 2012.
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?
**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]
An MS 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.
Pan-Arctic and Regional Outlook submission deadline: Friday, 7 June 2013.
For further information on the Sea Ice Outlook, please go to:
http://www.arcus.org/search/seaiceoutlook
Or contact:
Helen Wiggins, ARCUS
Email: helen@arcus.org
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
4.8 million.
5.4 million
Since there are two hemispheres containing sea ice, (one advancing and one retreating) limiting the contest to the Northern Hemisphere plays directly into the hands of the alarmist crowd, who are perfectly happy to ignore the persistent growth in Antarctic Ice area. The aggregate area of the two hemispheres remains surprisingly stable during the brief 34 year period for which satellite records are available.
Here is an excerpt from a brief article (apparently not ready for prime time) I submitted to WUWT:
Specifically, I have extracted current and historical ice extent data on day 146 of specific years to match the current date (give or take a day or two) of 146 days since the first of January.
Arctic data is located here:
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/arctic.sea.ice.interactive.html
Antarctic data is located here:
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/antarctic.sea.ice.interactive.html
First, let’s look at the maximum Arctic and Antarctic extents on day 146:
Arctic Max (1985)………………11.970 sq. km.
Antarctic Max (2010)…………..9.721 sq. km.
Next, Minimum Arctic and Antarctic extents on day 146:
Arctic Minimum (2011)………..10.110 sq. km.
Antarctic Minimum (1980)…….7.262 sq. km.
Clearly, the Antarctic sea ice extent has exhibited greater variability than the Arctic during the period (1979-present) for which data is available. In fact, the difference between the Antarctic minimum and maximum extents amounts to just shy of two and half million square kilometers. Is this a case of selective denial in the face of an inconvenient truth?
Let’s look at the present ice extents for additional perspective on day 146:
Arctic (current)………………….10.944 sq. km.
Antarctic (current)………………9.517 sq. km.
Of course, a meaningful analysis requires an apple to apple comparison of our present aggregate extent relative to the maximum Arctic extent. The Arctic Max (1985) was chosen over the Antarctic max it is the larger of the two and a common bone of contention in AGW alarmist folklore. Accordingly, this comparison examines the aggregate sea ice loss between the present and the 1985 Arctic maximum. The strategic objective; quantify exactly what the heck “a whole lot” means for those of us who don’t live in Mr. Plait’s narrow world.
Current (day 146) Arctic and Antarctic aggregate extent = 20.461 million sq. km.
1985 (day 146) Arctic and Antarctic aggregate extent = 20.913 million sq. km.
Conclusion: the present aggregate extent of sea ice is .452 million sq. km less than the Arctic/Antarctic aggregate during the 1985 Arctic maximum.
Ask me on 7/1 as it will be much easier to tell
No, it’s worse than that … It’s even worse than you think. 8<)
See, while each of your statements is correct in and of itself, each is incomplete and – each is used by the CAGW doctrine in its own way to be misleading the public and (of course) their politicians. (And, misleading politicians is, obviously, both the goal and the result of the CAGW doctrine.)
The antarctic sea ice is not only increasing, but it is setting new record highs.
But is is setting those record high sea ice extent in latitudes where the southern sun IS being reflected at ever-increasing rates, thus cooling the planet every year and every month and every day that the Antarctic sea ice increases above previous levels.
Right now, each September at its ea ice maximum, the antarctic sea ice “edge” is a “ring” around Antarctica at 60 – 61 degrees south latitude. Increasing Antarctic sea ice pushes that “edge” of increased reflectivity further north (away form the south pole obviously) and into a region where the sun is ever higher in the sky. So, ,each 1 million km square increase sea ice area occurs where the sun varies between 25 and 30 degrees elevation, where the air mass diffusing and blocking that energy is less and less, and where the albedo of reflection (from water and from sea ice) is lower and lower. There is NO maximum Antarctic sea ice limit: it could extend as far north as the Ice Age glaciers went south (to 40 north latitude where ice a mile thick covered Chicago and the center of North America. (And, if Antarctic sea were higher in the past, there would be no land under that sea ice “glacier” to mark a terminal moraine of maximum extent.)
I can go into the math of each of these effects – and, with Anthony’s permission, will send him a series of writeups detailing each effect and how and why they differ between the arctic and antarctic , but, the result is exactly what the CAGW doctrine holds: More Antarctic Sea ice leads to increased reflection of energy from the planet, and an increasing cooler planet. A cooler southern sea, a cooler Antarctic sea means more sea ice the next year and cooler water mixed into the south Pacific and south Atlantic oceans.
The exact opposite happens when today’s Arctic sea extents are at their minimum in September each year. The current minimum arctic sea extents of 3.5 million km2 can be closely represented by a simple “beanie” cap over the north pole, extending only down to 81 north latitude. Each million km2 loss of Arctic sea ice merely moves the edge of this cap further north, closer to the pole. Air mass increases, maximum solar elevation decreases as the sea ice edge moves north, and available solar energy continues to decline. Even now, through the entire month of September, there is not enough solar energy in the day to be absorbed in the newly exposed open ocean make up for increased evaporation and convection losses from the open water.
Thus, at today’s Arctic minimum sea ice extents, increased Arctic sea ice loss means MORE cooling and COLDER Arctic Ocean waters. But that’s not what the CAGW community wants you to hear – They NEED you to hear about a loss of 2.0 million square km of sea ice, and “believe” that that loss is much, much worse than a “mere” trivial 1.0 square gain in Antarctic sea ice at the same time.
In reality, BOTH sea ice trends have the same effect: Increased global cooling.
Add in the increased snow and ice coverage in northern Europe and Asia-Siberia from the increased evaporation of previously ice-covered waters, and you just might have found the “tipping point” of the next glaciers……
John Silver says:
June 3, 2013 at 11:27 pm
—————————————
I see no prediction from you. Can I assume that you have been unable to find a monkey?
I’m basing my predictions strictly on two plots:
1) The plot for Yearly Minimum Sea Ice Extent from your sea ice page: NORSEX SMMR/SSM1 which gives averages for Yearly Maximum, Yearly Mean, Yearly Minimum as well as Change per Decade for each. It seems to me that the later data in the Yearly Minimum extent curve would be fit better by an exponential than a linear trend.
2) A plot of PIOMAS Yearly Minimum Arctic Ice Volume which includes an exponential curve fit which gives an estimate of when volume reaches 0. See:
Another version of this plot indicated the 95% confidence interval on the curve is roughly +/- 1 year.
Given the PIOMAS volume curve fit says 0 ice volume in 2015 I extended the Ice Extent plot based on this. I get (eyeballing graphs) 2.7 for 2013 and 1.2 for 2014 – and of course 0 for 2015. Be interesting to refer to these estimates over next 2 years. Note that the extended extent plot does not look absurd.
I’m basing my predictions strictly on two plots:
1) The plot for Yearly Minimum Sea Ice Extent from your sea ice page: NORSEX SMMR/SSM1 which gives averages for Yearly Maximum, Yearly Mean, Yearly Minimum as well as Change per Decade for each. It seems to me that the later data in the Yearly Minimum extent curve would be fit better by an exponential than a linear trend.
2) A plot of PIOMAS Yearly Minimum Arctic Ice Volume which includes an exponential curve fit which gives an estimate of when volume reaches 0. See:
Another version of this plot indicated the 95% confidence interval on the curve is roughly +/- 1 year.
Given the PIOMAS volume curve fit says 0 ice volume in 2015 I extended the Ice Extent plot based on this. I get (eyeballing graphs) 2.7 for 2013 and 1.2 for 2014 – and of course 0 for 2015. Be interesting to refer to these estimates over next 2 years. Note that the extended extent plot does not look absurd.
Apologies if I posted twice. My first seemed to disappear.
Brooks Bridges
goldminor says:
June 4, 2013 at 9:21 am
I gave the number, 6.66, earlier. My monkey was possessed.
John Silver says:
June 4, 2013 at 1:38 pm.
—————————————-
My bad! I remember the comment now that you mention it. I had contemplated that # until I saw it taken.
Sorry to hear about the monkey.
5.95 ! What’s my price?
5.931415929
i needed to incorporate ( approximate ) the number Pi in my prediction somehow – other that that the base ( 5.9 ) is simply ( i think it was a critical constant + or – 90 % ) ) from a model i have developed and revised, predicated upon an earlier algorithm that solves level 37 in candy crush saga, using a minimum number of moves.
What is pi in your world? I would think one could argue for either 5.931415925 or 5.931415926, but not 5.931415929