By Joe Bastardi and Anthony Watts (based on an email exchange)
This is interesting. NOAA is forecasting the months of August, September, and October of 2014 to have above normal Arctic Sea ice extent. As readers know, late September is typically the time of the Arctic Sea Ice minimum, and this year the NOAA forecast has it slightly above normal. Here is the NOAA forecast graph:
UPDATE: I no more than finished this post and NOAA had a new updated forecast for May 23rd, added below. (h/t Ric Werme)
For the last three May 12th forecasts, this year’s forecast for summer is the highest of them.
Source: http://origin.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/people/wwang/cfsv2fcst/imagesInd3/sieMon.gif
Notice how much higher this is than last years forecast at this time:
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/people/wwang/cfsv2_fcst_history/201305/imagesInd3/sieMon.gif
And also higher than in 2012:
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/people/wwang/cfsv2_fcst_history/201205/imagesInd3/sieMon.gif
The CFSV2 forecasting model was not on line before that, but if we then go to the Northern hemisphere sea ice plot from Cryosphere today we can see how significant this would be if summer came out with a positive anomaly.
![seaice.anomaly.arctic[1]](http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2014/05/seaice-anomaly-arctic1.png)
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/seaice.anomaly.arctic.png
It appears that all summers since about 1996 have not had any positive anomalies. (see magnified view below)
At the very least if we get it positive and the melt season is the lowest since the AMO went warm it will be something that goes right at the heart of the arguments that recent Arctic sea ice deviations are entirely human caused.
In addition, given the Southern Hemisphere continues with well above normal sea ice, if it continues, it gives us a shot at a record breaking global sea ice in the satellite era.
On the other hand, it is a model forecast, and may not come to be. It will be interesting to watch though.
As always, check the WUWT Sea Ice Page for the latest information.
Here is the background on CFS:
The NCEP Climate Forecast System Version 2 (CFSv2)
The CFS version 2 was developed at the Environmental Modeling Center at NCEP. It is a fully coupled model representing the interaction between the Earth’s atmosphere, oceans, land and seaice. It became operational at NCEP in March 2011.
Please reference the following article when using the CFS Reanalysis (CFSR) data.
Saha, Suranjana, and Coauthors, 2010: The NCEP Climate Forecast System Reanalysis. Bull. Amer. Meteor. Soc., 91, 1015.1057. doi: 10.1175/2010BAMS3001.1
Please reference the following article when using the CFS version 2 Reforecast model or data
Saha, Suranjana and Coauthors, 2014: The NCEP Climate Forecast System Version 2 Journal of Climate J. Climate, 27, 2185–2208. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-D-12-00823.1
but if we then go to the Northern hemisphere sea ice plot from Cryosphere today we can see how significant this would be if summer came out with a positive anomaly.
Not really, the model uses a different baseline. http://origin.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/people/wwang/cfsv2fcst/
You’re not very good with baselines are you?
I emailed the good Prof with these quotes and the NOAA forecast…can’t wait to hear from him but I will not hold my breath!
Jimbo says:
May 23, 2014 at 4:19 pm
NOAA forecasts above normal Arctic ice extent for summer 2014
Professor Peter ‘hot head’ Wadhams is right on track for his ice-free Arctic ocean I see. I can’t help thinking whether he will be just like Dr. David Viner. It will be so sad to see such an esteemed Arctic specialist being ridiculed mercilessly in the years to come. I can understand if he just made a prediction once, but he kept going on and on about it.
h/t to Joe Bastardi and Anthony Watts!
Keep them honest and they will respond. To be honest, they have no choice if you can hold them to the science.
So, we all knew the satellite observation began close to the beginning (bottom) of the cycle. All the rhetorical warming news occurred during the rise to this topping pattern. Warming gave way to Climate Change as we approached the top of the cycle and we can expect the cycle to complete in the next ~20 years when they will resume to chat Warming.
Assuming satellite observation continues over the next few decades (they’re killing the economy so we may not be able to afford replacements), it will be fascinating to watch global sea ice changes and refined models which replace educated guesses with factual observations.
LOL, Surfs Up – catch the wave.
Thanks to Nick Stokes quoting of the CFv2 paper we see that:
– models do make predictions and forecasts
– models can be compared to observations
So, is the some official climate “science” notification that indicates which models can be compared to observations and which cannot?
Steven Mosher says:
May 23, 2014 at 6:29 pm
Gosh sounds like the stupid mistake Goddard made here years ago.
Here is what ice free means : extent or area less than 1 million sq km
=====
Gosh, sounds like the stupidest thing I’ve ever heard….
Only in agenda driven “science” would something the size of Egypt…be considered “ice free”
…try walking across Egypt Mosh….and then get back to me and tell me it’s “land free”
I don’t know why anyone has a problem with defining Arctic meltdown as reaching an extent of 1 million km^2 or less. I’m quite happy to give the warmists that much leeway. In a can’t-lose situation like this, I’m more than willing to be generous. In fact, this takes care of any issues of definition in the future. Even these guys are unlikely to turn around and say, “We now think that 1 million as a criterion is too severe; 2 million is more sensible.”
correction to my last post:
~20 years
s/b
~30-45 years
Steven Mosher says:
May 23, 2014 at 6:29 pm . . . . .
Mr. Mosher, many times, you seem to be have useful things to say and useful insights to consider; however, you poison your own well with posts like your May 23 posts. Yes, it is easily understood in the “skeptic” community that ice-free north pole does not equal ice-free arctic basin. However, that does not seem to be well understood in the “believer” support community. Numerous, numerous times experts in the believer community have forecasted upcoming unprecedented ice-free north pole. And the believer community accepts them and spreads those forecasts and fears. Believers do not reject them — or even clarify them. The believer community could be much more credible if they had a Gerald Ford moment. When David Duke tried to join the Republican Party, Gerald Ford rejecting him — saying that he had no place in the GOP. The believer community would not have such a hard time and would not have so much egg on its face if it rejected the unprecedented catastrophic predictions that characterize it.
The fund of respect that Mosher built up for his role in Climategate, and exposing Peter Gleick is now well and truly exhausted.
I can imagine the conversation:
Scientist #1: “Where the hell is CO2? It’s becoming an irritating habit showing up for work too lazy to do anything! And we still haven’t put this film in the can yet!”
Scientist #2: “I hear ya. We may have to call in our CO2 standins cuz the bossman don’t want us to fire its lazy ass. At least not yet.”
Scientist #1: “Look man! We have a contract that says its gotta work whenever it shows up! A CONTRACT!”
Scientist #2: “Simmer down. We can always photo splice it in and not tell anyone.”
Scientist #1: “Okay, if you say so. But this is getting harder and harder for us to make a good film!”
Scientist #2: “Listen. I’ve talked with Ed and Mariel. They both back us on this idea. Photo shopping is the way to go. If we stick together and keep our mouths shut no one will ask any questions about CO2. We’ll make it look like it is still actually working hard as ever. Trust me. I’ve done this kind of thing before when I was involved with the medical insurance group.”
(then scientist #2 is later seen taking off his lifelike mask, tearing it away revealing a sly toothy grin as he makes his way back to the Oval Office)
Actually, this is very possible
Right now slightly most of the negative anomaly in the Arctic is coming from the Barents (-0.26), Bering (-0.06), Chukchi (-0.06) and Okhotsk (-0.06) seas. These always melt or nearly melt away anyhow, so no matter what, soon the anomaly from them will be 0. Which will bring the negative sea ice anomaly in the Arctic closer to zero.
The ice in the Arctic Basin is trending very slightly above normal right now. In late summer, the size of the Arctic basin sea ice is really the one to watch and will decide if the Artic sea ice goes positive or not.
Pamela Gray says:
May 24, 2014 at 8:55 am
…
(then scientist #2 is later seen taking off his lifelike mask, tearing it away revealing a sly toothy grin as he makes his way back to the Oval Office)
=======
Ouch!
Scientist #2: “Simmer down. We can always photo[shop] splice it in and not tell anyone.” — brings up an interesting point as we’ve all seen poor polar bears dropped from helicopters and dancing on ice cubes but scientists don’t do this.
Pamela, I think you’ve got the wrong targets in your sites.
John, using your logic, so which scientists are either dumb and should not be working in the field, or are willingly engaging in biased research just for money and prestige?
Do you remember the suffering wrought by scientists claiming that autism was caused by “cold mothering” syndrome? I suppose mothers were wrong to shine a spotlight on them and the sloppy research and conclusions they forced on these children and their mothers.
By the way, guvmnt went right along with this research regarding autism. And in several cases, forcibly removed children from their mothers.
When it comes to sloppy research, I think the net should be wide when clearer heads finally prevail.
Joe Bastardi says:
May 23, 2014 at 5:20 pm
What signal do you look for to determine when the AMO has flipped to cold.? Thanks
Pamela Gray says:
May 24, 2014 at 9:19 am
By the way, guvmnt went right along with this research regarding autism. And in several cases, forcibly removed children from their mothers.
=========
We could fill the Library of Congress with examples of foolish legislation and scientific research gone wrong. Hindsight/Insight should be a tool for change but its not getting much traction on the Climate Policy front. Hmmm, actually Australia is making some needed changes.
All scientists are not responsible for the antics of a handful of Climate zealots and NGOs who alter/craft research results to fit their aims. Its sad to see what the UNFCCC has become but there’s only so far a Cargo Culture approach can take them.
Handful is sadly an understatement at this point but its getting better as the public understands the abuses.
To be honest, a virtual museum documenting the mess makes sense to ensure the future never forgets.
Malpractice with punishment in research is rare. We worry that it will stifle important and real advances. And many complain of the slow pace of research here in the US, often turning to other countries without such restrictions in order to seek desperately desired cures. However, for something as global as this current debate, and its potential to harm millions, laws that lead to restrictions on any further tax payer funding of individual researchers should be enacted. Over exaggeration of research results and the use of deceptive practices with intent to force a desired outcome should be outlawed when research is on the tax payer’s dime. Our house and senate should not wait for the need of such legislation and should enact it now.
Greg Goodman says:
May 23, 2014 at 10:22 pm
“So far Arctic ice extent 2014 has been running notably lower than it was in 2012.”
Greg, the factor that decides most of the extent in the summer minimum is the amount of multi-year ice. The one year ice can go as quickly or as slowly as it likes but look at the amount of 2m+ ice, look at the 3m-5m+ice in and around the Arctic Archipelago. It is higher than in more than a decade. Look at the 3-4m ice in the NW passage. I’m predicting no sailing it for a generation to come. Predicting higher minimum is a no-brainer this year.
rw says:
May 24, 2014 at 8:21 am
I don’t know why anyone has a problem with defining Arctic meltdown as reaching an extent of 1 million km^2 or less
=====
Two reasons rw….letting them define what’s normal….and basing their science on their definition of normal
I see no point in discussing some “science” that has it’s very roots in temp reconstructions that have been “adjusted”…..discussing what CO2 does or does not do, based on adjusted temps…..and discussing some science that declares an area the size of Egypt does not exist
Pamela Gray says:
May 24, 2014 at 9:58 am
=======
IMHO, don’t throw the baby out with the bath water.
The true cause of the problem(s) isn’t the research. Research to understand climate should be ongoing as should factual accounts of what actually occurs over time. The research simply shouldn’t be narrowly defined to support a predetermined conclusion.
There’s nothing wrong with scientific research nor a scientific debate related to results and the state of understanding.
The true cause of the problems is the assumed need for policy decisions which are based on wild assumptions.
Policy decisions should be put in the penalty box until the game is understood.
I wrote a correspondence to “Professor Peter ‘hot head’ Wadhams” and he actually responded; Here is my email to him;
“Good day professor….. do you still stand by these words? Because in light of NOAA’s forecast for above average ice this coming Aug and Sep it appears your time is running out. That’s the problem with being an Alarmist, you’re usually if not always WRONG!” (and I pasted in all the JIMBO quotes/links along with the email.)
To which he responded; “Dear Mr Skinner, I think you should wait until September 2015 before you assert that I’m wrong, since that remains my prediction. Yours sincerely, Peter Wadhams”
And I replied; “It’ll be my complete pleasure. I’ll hand you a napkin over the ‘pond’ so you can wipe the egg from your face Sept 2015. What a ridiculous prediction you make. You’re a Doctorate? My oh my….computer models are not reality ‘doctor’. Your prediction is fanciful. See you in Sept 2015.”
Ok a bit harsh but dang it, this stuff infuriates me. Sept 2015 can’t come soon enough!
“Gosh, sounds like the stupidest thing I’ve ever heard….
Only in agenda driven “science” would something the size of Egypt…be considered “ice free”
…try walking across Egypt Mosh….and then get back to me and tell me it’s “land free””
Actually not. If you look at the reason why folks would say 1 million was effectively ice free youd understanding.
1. If you said no ice whatsoever was “ice free” you can imagine the games people would play
A) they would argue that satillites have poor resolution ( say 10km)
B) they would point to fast ice that hugs the shore partly in water partly on land.
C) they would hunt for a picture and piicture of 1 sq foot of ice and say ‘not ice free’
2. At 1 million sq km you’d be left with just the ice hugging the land at the northern most
latitudes.
3. When people ask for clarification of what we mean by ‘ice free’ we are free to make
an operationally sensible definition.
So,
A) we dont have the physical means to sense the artic to say that every sq millimeter is free of ice.
B) that means we have to choose an operationally sensible definition.
C) 1 million sq km was chosen. yes it is somewhat arbitary, one could have said 900K or 873K
or 42K or 1.1114 million or 0 meters or zero millimeters, or not a single ice crystal.
The definition is an operational one, so its best if you remember that when talking to people.
If you want a different definition, say 0 km, then you have to propose a method to determine
that. 0km measured how, with what accuracy? When you see that any definition requires operational decisions and operational choices, you’ll understand the importance of setting out those criteria.
But here is the clue. Ice free at the north pole is bad definition. do you mean exactly at 90,0?
one millimeter of open water? 1 meter? suppose 1 meter were ice free and the entire basin was not?
ice free at the north pole wouldnt mean much would it? suppose 100 meters were open and the rest of the basin wasnt. Suppose the rest of the basin was ice free and there was 10 meters of ice at the north pole, exactly at 90,0.
John, I disagree. The medical community has learned its lesson. That same lesson needs to be extended to educational research and climate research. Why? Because the cost of getting it wrong due to bias or sloppy research methods is high and potentially significantly injuriously harmful to a great many people.
Climate research should be aware that a time will come when their efforts are investigated with the same tenacity, depth, and endurance seen in this case:
http://www.bmj.com/content/342/bmj.c7452
tom s says:
May 24, 2014 at 10:33 am
=======
Your email to Dr. Wadhams is an example of the type of email Dr. Bengtsson received.
IMO, the tone of your email serves no purpose and is counter-productive/harmful.
If his prediction turns out to be incorrect, it would be interesting to welcome him to debate the cause. Predictions have rarely proven to be accurate unless they are extremely general. “above normal” has a good chance of success.