Joe Bastardi writes on the Patriot Post:
There is a huge event being forecasted this year by the CFSV2, and I don’t know if anyone else is mentioning this. For the first time in over a decade, the Arctic sea ice anomaly in the summer is forecast to be near or above normal for a time! While it has approached the normals at the end of the winter season a couple of times because of new ice growth, this signals something completely different – that multiyear growth means business – and it shows the theory on the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO) is likely to be on target.
Once it flips, this red herring of climate panic will be gone. Global and Southern Hemisphere anomalies are already unmentionable since the former is well above normal and the latter is routinely busting daily records.
The biggest minimum anomalies are in the summer since this flipped, and the only peaks came very close to the height of winters once this melting was underway.
Now look at what the CFSV2 forecasted for 2012.
The brief positive anomaly hit early, but for the summer it’s well below normal. In 2013, it’s the same, though not as far.
But this year it’s forecast to be around normal in August!
This is only with a yearly AMO back off. I don’t think this is the real deal of the flip yet. But it makes the point that one can correlate the ice in the Arctic with the Atlantic cycle.
…
It should be obvious as to who is the boss here, and with the warm AMO in its waning years, the Arctic sea ice hysteria will wind up where so many agenda driven items do – on the ash heap of history.
This, if correct, is going to be a huge story. It would be the first summer where Arctic sea ice returned to near normal, indicative of the increase in multiyear ice and what a turn to the colder AMO in the future means! Let’s see if anyone else picks up on it.
Read his full story here: http://patriotpost.us/opinion/25340
==========================================================
More on CFSv2 here: http://origin.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/people/wwang/cfsv2fcst/
Phil. says:
May 6, 2014 at 7:43 am
————————
“The Future
Annual cargo traffic between northern Europe and the Far East is currently about thirty million
tonnes. Just over one million is carried on the Trans-Siberian Railway, and 216,000 on the
Northern Sea Route. Optimistic forecasts predict that the volume of world trade will double
over the next two decades. Visionaries are thinking of increasing the use of the Arctic route
between Europe and Asia and capturing new traffic between Europe and North America. They
are also looking at the potential offered by new ship designs (possibly submersibles) and
improved icebreaker technology. Another long-term consideration is how global warming will
affect ice conditions”
Improved! that ice going nowhere fast.
Mind you
Even thin skinned liberty ships did the arctic convoys back in the 1940’s.
Phil. says:
May 6, 2014 at 7:43 am
—————–
Even in 1987 the route was all year round for western section.
Year Cargo in Thousands of Tons Length of Season
1935 246 93 days
1940 289 93 days
1950 503 122 days
1960 1013 128 days
1970 2400 140-150 days
1980 4951 year round for western section
1987 6579 year round for western section
I havent seen a post on the Nenana Ice Classic this year. I think that the flag toppled over quite early, certainly compared to last year.
The Ice Situation is quite amusing. I often wonder how anyone can expect the ice to disappear in the Arctic circle. Six months of no/very low sun, all you can expect is variation around a norm. Did anyone really expect it to melt completely during the summer?
cont…
“The first offer to open the Northern Sea Route to international shipping was made
early in 1967, when it was argued that it could save thirteen days between Hamburg and
Yokohama as opposed to the conventional link via Suez. Soviet cargo carriers made three
demonstration voyages from north European ports and Japan. Unforeseen events then
intervened. The Suez Canal was closed later in 1967 by war and the invitation for international
shipping on the sea route was quietly withdrawn. The Soviets apparently did not wish to offend
friendly Arab governments by offering an alternative to the Suez Canal. The Canal was to
remain blocked for eight years and international shipping adjusted smoothly to using the Cape
route”
“normal”?…….I am sick and tired of people throwing that word out there
When we have no clue what :”normal” is………..you know they’ve fudged the numbers
….and you know it wasn’t “normal” when they started
richard says:
May 6, 2014 at 8:08 am
Phil. says:
May 6, 2014 at 7:43 am
————————
“The Future
Annual cargo traffic between northern Europe and the Far East is currently about thirty million
tonnes. Just over one million is carried on the Trans-Siberian Railway, and 216,000 on the
Northern Sea Route.
That must be an old report the NSR carried over one million tonnes in 2012.
Optimistic forecasts predict that the volume of world trade will double
over the next two decades. Visionaries are thinking of increasing the use of the Arctic route
between Europe and Asia and capturing new traffic between Europe and North America. They
are also looking at the potential offered by new ship designs (possibly submersibles) and
improved icebreaker technology. Another long-term consideration is how global warming will
affect ice conditions”
Improved! that ice going nowhere fast.
Well clearly it did according to more recent reports by the Russians!
Mind you
Even thin skinned liberty ships did the arctic convoys back in the 1940′s.
Yes but they only went as far as Murmansk.
“son of mulder says:
May 6, 2014 at 4:29 am
“Steven Mosher says: May 5, 2014 at 10:15 pm
…..Its always good to check the validation of the model.”
What. like the IPPC does on all the models that have failed to predict a flat 17 yrs 8 months of global average temperature?”
if the IPCC does something stupid like failing to validate does that mean you have to do something stupid like failing to check the validation for this weather model ( which are typically validated)
set your standards based on what you know works, rather than repeating the flaws of those you criticize.
“All predictions are based on some sort of model. There is a difference between making predictions that can be readily tested, so as to check the model, which this is; and predictions which are made and claimed to be true without validating the model, which the warmists do.”
Actually not true.
The model in question here has pages and pages of validation. Its a weather model.
As for IPCC models, they are also validated. In some areas they do ok. in other areas not so good.
In general the GCM is better than any other tool in predicting long range changes.
Pamela Gray says:
May 5, 2014 at 8:00 pm
Samurai, you might want to read up on how Arctic sea ice forms and how it is moved around in and out of the Arctic. I would say that you have several misconceptions in your comment.
=========================
I realize there are many factors involved in Arctic ice formation/dissipation, but, ceretis paribus, the 56-year record warm Arctic temperatures this winter should have had a negative impact on ice formation in the Arctic region this winter, just as, conversely, the record low temperatures in North America lead to record ice formation of the Great Lakes this winter.
I also think the above average Northern Pacific and Northern Atlantic SSTs will speed up the melting process of Arctic sea ice in the summer months.
It also seems logical that the current 30-yr AMO warm cycle, which started in 1994, has contributed to Arctic ice loss in the Northern Atlanic region, although there is still some scientific uncertainty and debate that such a causal relationship exists…
It is interesting to note that since the PDO entered its 30-year cool cycle, Arctic sea ice extents in the Bering Sea region has returned to more normal levels.
” Bob Tisdale says: May 6, 2014 at 12:48 am
> TRM says: “So PDO is negative, AMO is negative and the sun is quiet….
Except the PDO has been positive for the first three months this year.”
My bad. Not keeping up with the Tisdales 😉
I’m several months out of date. I’ve got to check the status more often. I’m not as hard core as you. Thanks for the correction. Cheers.
Dave says:
May 6, 2014 at 8:14 am
I havent seen a post on the Nenana Ice Classic this year. I think that the flag toppled over quite early, certainly compared to last year.
25th April
Phil. says:
May 6, 2014 at 8:30 am
you will note that the route became all year round, 1980, three years after nuclear powered ice breakers came into operation.
Still I never knew the route was offered up in 1967.
Phil. says:
May 6, 2014 at 8:30 am
——————————
stop quoting the radio, newspapers or tv otherwise you will fall for this!!
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/09/27/us-shipping-coal-arctic-idUSBRE98Q0K720130927
“Big freighter traverses Northwest Passage for 1st time”
The SS Manhattan did it in 1969.
In general the GCM is better than any other tool in predicting long range changes.
Hmm, last week was “agree with Stephen and Nick week”, but today I have to take issue with this. Again, see figures 9.8a and 9.8b of AR5. EMIC’s (Earth System Models of Intermediate Complexity) do substantially better than GCMs in predicting long range changes (up to 2005, where the figure inexplicably ends). Both EMICs and GCMs suck — and I mean really, really suck — at hindcasting the climate. Both of them (unsurprisingly) do decently during the so-called reference period, a.k.a. The training data to those of us who do predictive modeling but this is utterly irrelevant to ability to actually predict. And even in the reference period, EMICs outperform GCMs.
In the post-reference period, EMICs do better BECAUSE they actually made the turn into the current flat temperature regime, where GCMs continue rocketing up. A cynic would conclude that their predictions wasn’t continued or plotted up to e.g. 2011 or 2012 because they do not predict a large climate sensitivity; perhaps they actually worked across the flattening where GCMs fail but then lead to non-alarming rises by 2100, I do not know.
But unless you have actual data that proves your assertion to counter the actual data in AR5 that contradicts it, I think this is incorrect.
rgb
@ur momisugly polarbearscience…also note that deep cold spot off of the Atlantic coast. The center of it shifted from -5 to -5.5 since the 4th. That cold spot sits on a line from Lake Michigan through Hudson Bay and out into the Atlantic. It has been developing there for the last 5 weeks. I would think that it is going to be a strong influence on Europe,s temps for this summer.
@SAMURAI,
“I realize there are many factors involved in Arctic ice formation/dissipation, but, ceretis paribus, the 56-year record warm Arctic temperatures this winter should have had a negative impact on ice formation in the Arctic region this winter, just as, conversely, the record low temperatures in North America lead to record ice formation of the Great Lakes this winter.”
It is not unusual during severe winters that the polar (arctic) source regions “warm”. I can still remember when I was a weather forecaster during the winter of 1983/84 to see “warm fronts” coming out of north-central Canada! For a period of 6 weeks the upper level jetstream forced the forming polar air masses to advect southward one right after another. Needless to say there appeared to be an arctic “hot spot”, when in reality the surface temps over the arctic and other polar regions didn’t exactly “warm”. At least not in the sense the laymen believed. During other synoptic patterns, the polar and deep arctic air masses remain bottled up in the high latitudes. And during other situations warm waters advected from the tropical regions do in fact melt arctic ice. During the final stretches of the 1983-84 cold shot, it wasn’t unusual to see surface temperatures in the Dakotas and High Plains to be colder than the reporting stations in extreme Northern Canada. And I still remember one of those wicked cold fronts being so strong as to drive into Central Mexico.
@rgbatduke
You are spot on with your assessment of ECIMs/GCMs. Unfortunately, those who believe in their ability to predict future climate really don’t want to talk about the differential equations, numerical methods or initial/boundary conditions which comprise these codes. That’s where the real problems are…
@Bob Tisdale,
TRM says: “So PDO is negative, AMO is negative and the sun is quiet….”
Except the PDO has been positive for the first three months this year.
I checked NOAA’s PDO index for the last 30 years and I’ve noticed there were stretches when the PDO was positive that the indicies went negative for a short period of time (3-6 months) and vice versa.
Here’s the link I used:
http://jisao.washington.edu/pdo/
There’s been so much blather about the PDO that I remain agnostic to it all. Maybe I should buy one of your e-books!
And for those who want to see a typical government-funded GCM, here you go…
http://www.giss.nasa.gov/tools/modelE/
I urge everyone who has experience with scientific computing to download the source code and check it out. Let me know if anyone can determine what equations it’s solving – they aren’t listed anywhere…
evanmjones says:
May 5, 2014 at 9:31 pm
So…how can an anomaly be said to be near or above normal
He’ll be meaning for the average of the 1981 – 2010 time period. “Zero anomaly” would be the average.
I would rather see the anomaly plotted with standard deviation on the Y axis. Statistically it would say more. A great many of the “scary” plots used to show how some metric is behaving relative some arbitrarily chosen “average” period use exaggerated vertical axes to make the behaviour “clear .” The problem is that such exaggeration can also mislead you into thinking the apparent changes are significant. I would like to see an excursion of at least three SD before I started even wondering about “significance” and even that is a fairly high chance of a Type I error (~1:500). That may seem like a small number, but a bit of consideration will lead to the realization that vastly more unlikely events are part of everyday life. If you play some game like Poker, Yahtsee or Risk, you have almost certainly seen far more unlikely events. If you haven’t, then you would be a statistical anomaly yourself
Steven Mosher says:
May 6, 2014 at 8:34 am
[“In general the GCM is better than any other tool in predicting long range changes.”]
Well, if there is one thing for sure, the AGW camp has more than its fair share of making predictions…
Actually, that should have read “… the AGW camp has more than its fair share of tools making predictions…
But the moment has gone now!
“The SS Manhattan did it in 1969.”
Accompanied by four ice breakers apparently. Nordic Orion did it by itself.
“The SS Manhattan, undertaken to test the viability of shipping oil from Alaska to the Gulf of Mexico, was repeatedly trapped by ice and the U.S. turned away from the idea and instead built a pipeline.” – http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/international-business/european-business/bulk-carrier-capitalizes-on-arctic-shortcut/article14405743/
Like it or not the passage is becoming a viable option for shipping.
Janne says:
May 6, 2014 at 11:00 am
“The SS Manhattan did it in 1969.”
Accompanied by four ice breakers apparently. Nordic Orion did it by itself
——————–
although the Nordic Orion was accompanied by the Louis S. St. Laurent, a Coast Guard icebreaker.
I am sure satellite navigation helps compared to 1969.
The ship MV Nordic Orion weighs 13,000 tons, of which about 3,000 tonnes are pure ice strengthening. The engine has 18,500 horsepower at an ordinary ship in the class 11,000 to 12,000 horsepower. All this has meant that the vessel has ice class 1A, which is the highest commercial grade of ice-strengthened ships.
Still good news for the ice breaking industry,in the 2010-2011 seas they rescued over 10,000 ships.
http://www.arctic-info.com/ExpertOpinion/Page/-the-need-for-icebreakers-will-increase-after-the-year-2016-
“For this reason, especially in the summer, there has been an increase in the need for icebreakers on the Northern Sea Route”
2010-2011 season