Ice extent is the lowest on record. PIOMAS shows the thinnest ice on record. NSIDC says temperatures in the Arctic are above normal due to the dipole anomaly.
Can there be any doubt that ice extent will hit a record low this summer – maybe even ice free? Time for alarmists to put their money where their mouth is. All the government supported science stars are lined up perfectly.
I am confused. In reading your posts, I thought ice was melting at the slowest rate ever, at least in the places you posted about and the thickest it has been in many years.
Instead of being a general moron, please post what I said that confused you.
I can’t keep track of all your posts. there was something about Barrow Alaska I think. And numerous posts about the thickness of the ice being thickest it has been in years. Part of the recovery of the arctic you have talked about.
Tony Duncan
You should keep track of what you yourself are saying. If you don’t know what you are saying why post it in a comment?
Agree Tony, it is Steve v the polar scientists!
Steve indicated more than once that minimum extent will be about 6×10 million square kilometres this year, so aping 2006 … we willl see how are he is out. I think he will be way way too high .. millions of Manhattans :p
[Bullshit – cut the crap Andy. I have zero patience for liars.]
Andy
Complete bullshit Andy. Provide a link, apologize, or go to spam. I will not tolerate people lying about me on my blog.
Steve, why should anyone else make a prediction when you don’t dare to?
For what it’s worth, my non-expert guess is for a record low, but not by much: something around 4 million. That’s pretty similar to the average of the SEARCH exercise – which you could easily discuss if you wanted to address the prediction game this year. Hell, go to town and compare the predictions from different methodologies if you want. Do some science.
OT
Latest Zogby poll from July 5:
Bachmann opening lead over Romney, Cain:
Bachmann 34%
Cain 15%
Romney 14%
http://www.dakotavoice.com/2011/07/zogby-bachmann-holds-commanding-lead-over-all-republicans/
I am glad Palin is not running.
Hopefully Romney will just go away.
I don’t know if it’s going to be such a great job to be President from 2013 to 2017.
LOL,
Tony,you are so confused.That you do not even know what you are confused about.
The mirror effect. It is AGWs who made the initial betting challenges.
Ask Joe Romm how you can get into his Arctic bet.
Now for a breath of fresh air:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-wbzK4v7GsM&feature=player_embedded#at=203
See if you are intelligent enough to understand this graph
I’m patient enough to wait for September. What’s more, I don’t really care whether it makes a record this year. That’s because:
1. There’s something known as trend. The trend Luke. Use the trend!
2. A substantial factor in ice thinning comes from waters underneath that have been warming for decades. What’s warming it? Never mind; I forgot. Winds cause thinning ice and icebreakers cause shrinkage in ice extent.
I know that for sure because a Mexican Muslim Marxist told me.
Oh, before I forget; water is 1,000 X denser than air. This means that it takes a long time to heat up and an equally long time to cool off (assuming the same rate of temperature loss). So, if it has taken decades to warm up, it will take decades to cool off.
When will this happen?
As soon as Joe Bastardum and his chilling predictions come true.
3. The summer atmosphere over the Arctic is not getting any colder on a continuous basis. The winter air temperatures are getting even warmer. You know, the colder it is
That keeps the ice from rebuilding as much as it could have; making it more susceptible to melt next summer.
I swear that’s the truth! I swear on Che Guevara’s grave that it’s true!
4. Then there’s that pesky thingie called Thermal Lag. Our best Communist scientists have figured it out at another 1F global average (On top of our current 1.4F) in the next 30 years. Assuming all that fossil fuel burning stuff was to magically stop.
Will all of these Communist convolutions keep the Arctic ice cap on its Death Spiral?
YOU BETCHA 😉
Terra Incognita == Ill wind blowing == Villabolo == Trollobolo == Trollobollo == Mecago == Enelcuno Delatuya == Gaya Hap
Suggested next alias … Mental Patient
It does seem to be the same person using more than one name.
What complete moron made this video. Comparing ‘sea ice’ at the poles. Gee Wally, isn’t one pole a landmass and the other open sea? Golly wouldn’t that skew ‘sea ice’ figures? Do you think that the ability of warm waters to flow under one pole and not the other might also make a difference?
And who is this naval blowhard that says arctic ice has not been lower for ‘thousands’ of years? Actually the amount of ice in the arctic right now is above the average for the past 9000 years.
Great video of misinformation, thanks.
The guy that made the video is Peter Sinclair, from Michigan. He is as leftist and warmist as you can get. He runs the channel “greenman3610” on youtube. Here is an interview with him:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ajBO6chGxfw
Here is his own bio from his youtube channel … note the part about Al Gore being a climate expert! :
Profile Name:Peter SinclairChannel Views:471,295Total Upload Views:1,643,427Style:—Joined:May 17, 2006Last Visit Date:1 month agoSubscribers:13,962Website:http://www.climatecrocks.comKnocking down the nonsense of Climate denial. About Me: Greenman Studio LLC is a graphic design and animation studio located in Midland, MI. Owner Peter Sinclair is a longtime advocate of environmental awareness and energy alternatives. An award winning graphic artist, illustrator, and animator, Mr. Sinclair runs Greenman Studio from his home in Midland, MI.
Mr. Sinclairs cartoons and illustrations have appeared in newspapers around the world, and his work has been profiled in numerous publications, including the New York Times, The Utne Reader, and HaAretz of Jerusalem.
30 years of writing and activism in the areas of energy and environment, including extended study in Nashville with Al Gore and the worlds leading climate experts, in addition to skillful
creation of audio visual presentations, have made Mr. Sinclairs
presentation on Climate change and alternative energy one which has been called a must see!
Constantly updated information, made vivid with striking, clear graphics and animations, many derived from NASA, The National Snow and Ice Data Center, and top international sources, an expert knowledge of the issues of energy and environment, and an informal, good humored delivery, make difficult concepts easy to see and grasp.
No issue will have a greater impact on the new century than the decisions we make on energy and the impact of global climate change, and Peter Sinclairs presentation makes the critical points
dramatically clear and immediate. Hometown:Midland, MICountry:United StatesOccupation:Creative Director, CEO, Greenman Images
Looks pretty thin at the “North Pole”
http://www.arctic.noaa.gov/latest/noaa2.jpg
In fact it looks like open water there as well as a huge melt pond.
Andy
That is surface melt.
It’s both. The pool in the foreground is surface melt, while the darker area beyond the marker posts is an open lead. You can tell it’s a lead by looking through the archive -you can clearly see the floe on the other side of the lead moving to and fro relative to the foreground floe.
Over the last few days, the camera itself has angled upwards, suggesting that the supporting structure is slowly toppling over backwards into the melt pool. You can tell the whole structure is moving, and not just the camera moving within its housing, because the fixed edge of the camera housing is visible in the upper top left corner.
Camera 1 should be updating every 8 hours, but has now missed 3 uploads in a row, plus a couple of intermittent drop-outs before that. It’s likely that there’s been a hardware failure of some kind, as happened last year to camera 1.
Camera 1 three hours earlier http://www.arctic.noaa.gov/latest/noaa1.jpg
I don’t think that dark patch is, looks too deep, more like a small lead. The lighter coloured area in the front is surface melt though.
Andy
Right. The pole is grounded in a lead. What a maroon.
No Steve, he’s quite right. Here’s a selection of pictures from the archive.
http://www.arctic.noaa.gov/npole/2011/images/noaa2-2011-0530-071629.jpg
May 30th: No openings or melt pools.
http://www.arctic.noaa.gov/npole/2011/images/noaa2-2011-0531-152033.jpg
http://www.arctic.noaa.gov/npole/2011/images/noaa2-2011-0531-232132.jpg
May 31st: A crack appears across the background and widens to show a clear lead.
http://www.arctic.noaa.gov/npole/2011/images/noaa2-2011-0604-153243.jpg
http://www.arctic.noaa.gov/npole/2011/images/noaa2-2011-0604-153543.jpg
June 4: Over the next few days the lead is slammed open and shut by winds/currents, raising a pressure ridge with snowdrifts. These two pictures are only 3 minutes apart, yet the background floe has clearly moved by several metres.
http://www.arctic.noaa.gov/npole/2011/images/noaa2-2011-0608-074551.jpg
June 8: Very different – I can’t make out whether it’s just snowdrifts blowing away or whether there’s now an entirely different floe in the background.
http://www.arctic.noaa.gov/npole/2011/images/noaa2-2011-0625-083433.jpg
http://www.arctic.noaa.gov/npole/2011/images/noaa2-2011-0630-084936.jpg
June 25-30: The snow melts down and a foreground melt pond starts to appear. Note the background flow still drifting to and fro
http://www.arctic.noaa.gov/npole/2011/images/noaa2-2011-0703-165935.jpg
http://www.arctic.noaa.gov/npole/2011/images/noaa2-2011-0704-170234.jpg
http://www.arctic.noaa.gov/npole/2011/images/noaa2-2011-0707-171139.jpg
July 3-7: Over the last week, the melt pond has expanded, and the camera has begun toppling over backwards – this set would make a lovely blink comparison.
Steve, I replied to this including a bunch of links to show what’s going on in the north pole webcam 2, but it seems to be stuck in moderation. Can you get it posted up, or shall I send it as a series of smaller replies?
That’s the strangest Illusion, looking at that I would NOT bet on the Arctic to be ice free this summer. But it wouldn’t surprise me if it ever did become ice free just as it has in the past.
OT
Reasons why a Great Depression is coming, One reason, total debt in America, government and personal added together, houses, cars, credit cards, etc., is $52,000,000,000,000.00
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pMQ4Wy6yPzo
CIA.gov ranks USA ‘account balance’ #191 in world, ranked lower than Spain, France, and Greece. China ranked #1.
List of nation account balance from CIA.gov
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2187rank.html
I think a record is possible, but highly unsure. I don’t think IJIS daily minimum SIE will be above 4.999 million though. But of course, anything is possible.
Small bet proposal
amount: 50 USD
dataset: IARC-JAXA (IJIS)
what: daily minimum sea ice extent
details: Neven bets IJIS daily minimum SIE to be below record of 2007, Steven bets IJIS daily minimum SIE to be 5 million square km or more, everything in between voids the bet.
That’d be a nice friendly bet, eh? 🙂
The bet is for a record low if you believe the official story.
Steven, there is no official story that there will be a record low, even though it is a distinct possibility at this moment in time.
Are you interested in this nice, friendly bet or not?
The whole point of this article is that the sum of the official parts demands a record low. If you want to change the subject, I’m not going there.
So, Neven, the models aren’t official? Does that mean they are, or are not scientific? Or are you just saying that the models aren’t predictive?
Why does the sum of the official parts demand a record low? Of course, if weather patterns come anywhere near those of 2007, there will be a record for sure. But no one knows what the weather will do, although I think that even with weather that is adverse to extent decrease (like in 2010), the minimum will be below 5 million square km.
The title of your blog post is: Time For Alarmists To Put Up Their Money. I’m an alarmist and I’m putting up money (a very friendly amount). I know you don’t want to commit yourself to any hard numbers, after last year’s forecasting fiasco. But this bet is pretty safe for both of us.
You want me to lower your number to 4.8 million square km?
How can you start with record low extent and thickness (by far) and have above normal temperatures and not get a record low? If the ice is as thin as PIOMASS claims – it should almost all melt in a normal summer.
Because of unpredictable weather patterns, Steve. That didn’t use to matter 20 years ago when the ice was so thick you could throw anything at it. Now that the ice has become thinner, it matters. Maybe if the ice continues to thin to a certain point weather patterns will start to matter less again. But now they matter in determining whether there will be record minimums or not.
I take it you’re not taking that bet?
I made the bet offer perfectly clear. Don’t try to change the subject.
Ah right, so you’re trying to pin “alarmists” (who in particular? Neven? AndyW? Tamino? Julienne?) down to a prediction of a record melt when no such prediction has been made. Curiously, you cry foul when people try to pin you down to a numerical prediction that you haven’t made.
Of course, a couple of the above have indeed made “official” predictions if you look at the SEARCH page. Some of the predictions in the SEARCH exercise forecast a new record, others do not. Why not discuss some of those predictions? Presumably that would be too much work: you want a single “alarmist” prediction to hold up for mockery. And so you cry Aha! and say that the narrative the “alarmists” are putting forward – in your words, “the sum of the official parts” – demands a record low.
In other words, this so-called forecast of a new record is something you’re inferring from other evidence put forward by this nebulous group of “alarmists”. And yet, you deny that your own narrative – thicker ice according to PIPS, predictions (since falsified) of late break-up at Barrow, extent supposedly tracking 2006 – has any bearing on forecasting whatsoever.
Sorry Steve, you can’t have it both ways. You can’t try to pin “alarmists” down to a specific prediction they haven’t made and complain when someone tries to do the same to you. You can’t claim that there’s an unspoken prediction inherent in their other pronunciations and deny that there’s an unspoken prediction in yours.
If you want to discuss predictions, there are plenty out there, ranging from 4.0 +/- 1.2 at the bottom end to 5.6 (no error bars) at the top end.
http://www.arcus.org/search/seaiceoutlook/2011/june
Right. PIOMAS record low. Record low extent. Hottest year ever last year. Record transport of ice. Record rotten ice. Above normal temperatures.
And you don’t think that adds up to a record low? Completely FOS.
The models all clearly predict[ed] less ice, but they’re not predictive. The models are used by every major outlet as evidence of Anthropogenic Global Warming, but the models are not official.
It all makes so much sense! It’s like mafia boss language: “Just cos I said he might come to harm doesn’t mean I told nobody to do him no harm. These guys, they just get a little excited some times, you know?”
Peter,
tI had to laugh as that is the first time I have heard Andy called an alarmist. From my experiences with him he is just honest.
This is fascinating. A short while ago i asked Steve if he was predicting something near the 79-2000 average because of the posts you mentioned regarding Barrow and the significant increase in multi year ice, and here I see that no one (at least on that graph) is predicting anything above 5.6 M/sq, and I see the ’70-2000 avg is about 6.7. It seems strange that we could have a La Niña for 8 months or so and all the cold weather Steve has posted throughout the winter, and not have an increase in ice extent and thickness from last year.
Another moron. I have been completely clear and precise about my prediction.
“Another moron.”
Steve, I thought you were limited to three rational responses..
1. Loon.
2. Maroon.
3. Take your meds.
I’m glad to see that you expanded your rhetorical arsenal. 🙂
Right, 7,000 posts I have put on this blog and you managed to pick out three words.
Moron.
Peter
with me he tends to alternate between maroon and moron. He also uses idiot. Of course my favorite is just the variations on Zzzzzzzzz.
Steve,
I don’t see how anyone could predict a record minimum, since you have clearly posted so often about the intense cold all winter, all the snow and the record late ice melt in places and the increase in multi year ice and thickness. We have been in a la Niña for quite some time now. As I said before how could you NOT predict a much larger extent than last year, since that was after a full on el Niño, record high temps, and you have been saying the ice has been recovering since 2007.
anyone who read your blog would be crazy to bet on a record minimum this year. You have shown it is totally impossible.
Amazing – all the official sources are providing information leading to the obvious conclusion of a record minimum. Yet none of the true believers are willing to bet on it. Apparently your faith is lacking.
Steve, if you bothered to read my comments properly, you’ll see I am betting on a record minimum. Specifically:
1) I win the bet if the minimum extent is a new record
2) The other party wins the bet if the extent is above X
3) Neither party wins if the extent is between X and the minimum
I am trying to pin down the value of X so we can actually make a binding bet. My standing offer is for X to be the 2010 minimum: i.e. if it’s higher than last year, the other team wins, while if it’s between 2010 and 2007, neither wins. I’m not prepared to bet without there being an intermediate “buffer zone” – any scientific prediction has error bars. I’m surprised you don’t know this: I thought you were an engineer?
At some point it might also be nice to know who I’m betting against, and how much, but I suppose these are mere arcane details in Steve-world.
That is ridiculous. The bet is record low vs. not.
Think about what that bet implies. I’m saying that even if the weather turns bad and melt slows down, there will still be an ongoing loss such that this year is worse than last year. And yet somehow that’s not “alarmist” enough for you? You don’t dare to take the bet? You’re not willing to bet on there being even a tiny improvement over last year? Way to challenge the overwhelming scientific consensus…
Go Steve!
Steven, you really are a bit of a coward, and I hope your readers notice it too.
Peter Ellis proposes an excellent bet, and I’m willing to propose the same conditions, even though the odds are (still) heavily in your favour. If the weather turns dramatically – like it did last year – and stays that way, the daily minimum extent could well be over 5 million square km.
But maybe, if the odds change, I might get back to you in a couple of weeks and take you up on your cowardly bet proposal of ‘record low vs not’. It’s still too early to tell right now, though the extent loss is spectacular at the moment.
If you are unwilling to bet on a record low vs not, then you obviously don’t believe the official climate bullshit.
Quit trying to change the subject. It is pathetic.
Okay, I will make the first prediction for September’s minimum:
1. There will be some ice
2. There will be some open water
3. This will be normal, and unimportant.
Thanks to Peter Ellis on his great post above
here we are today
http://www.arctic.noaa.gov/latest/noaa2.jpg
Biggest melt pond I have ever seen at the North Pole webcams. Will be interesting to see how they fair over the coming weeks.
Sub at the north pole 2011
http://www.zen141854.zen.co.uk/sub.jpg
This one made completely out of ice, can you spot it?
Andy
Steve, you said
“Complete bullshit Andy. Provide a link, apologize, or go to spam. I will not tolerate people lying about me on my blog.
I never lie Steve.
For the links just look at your multiple posts saying that 2011 is tracking 2006 when it obviously isn’t
http://www.iup.uni-bremen.de:8084/amsr/ice_ext_n.png
You have been saying 2011 is tracking 2006 where as I have been saying it have been tracking 2010.
Observers can make their own mind up but I think it is nothing like 2006. If you want to insist on 2011 tracking 2006 though then obviously you have the minima in mind and therefore your minima is about 6 million for extent just like it was in 2006. QED and no lying or spamming or need to apologize
Or are you now saying that 2011 is not tracking 2006 and minima will be a lot lower? Whats you final figure? Mine is 4.75
Andy
I haven’t made any extent predictions. Your claim that I did is complete bullshit.
What inference, if any, do you want people to draw from your claim that 2011 is tracking 2006? Why are you telling “alarmists” to “put up their money”? If you mean some sort of bet, then who’s putting up the other side of the money – you? I should point out that if you do end up taking a bet, then you’re implicitly making a forecast thereby.
Neven’s made a reasonable bet offer above: I’d be happy to make the same bet for a sane sum.
2011 has been tracking 2006.
I’m going to go with 4813364 km^2…that’s my first number posted here for 2011. And no, not all those digits are significant, but that’s what my spreadsheet gave. 😉
If the poor performance the past week continues, we could be in for a pretty darn low number. I’d say that anything from below 2007 to as high as 2006 is still on the table.
-Scott
lol…..that’s pretty much what I got!!!!……. somewhere between 4 and 6 mill km^2. IDK why we do this before the end of August. Any one being close to today correct would have done so completely inadvertently.
James, I would argue that we should be able to start narrowing that range within just a week or two. Correlations start getting pretty decent by the end of the month, and it is clear that 2007 is different from the others years, before and after, within just a few days from now.
By the end of August, it’s just guessing the fine tuning. The August 31 values are nearly perfect predictors of final placement. Even the final area/extent numbers are pretty easily extrapolated from Aug 31, with JAXA extent showing a 0.9722 R^2 and CT area having a 0.9664 R^2. IIRC, Aug 31 gets the JAXA (2003-2010) minimum order exactly right except for 2004/2006 (and their minima differed by < 3000 km^2).
-Scott
Hmm, so another big loss for JAXA on July 8. Now 2011 is the lowest in the JAXA record. I may have to revise my estimate down soon.
The comparison of the most recently available date for 2011 compares very poorly to 2010 at CT:
http://igloo.atmos.uiuc.edu/cgi-bin/test/print.sh?fm=07&fd=06&fy=2010&sm=07&sd=06&sy=2011
Comparing vs. 2007 doesn’t really paint a better picture.
-Scott
I don’t understand why no one wants to bet on a record low? Don’t you have enough evidence? Rotten, thin, small icepack in a record hot Arctic.
Seems like it should be a no-brainer.
Gee, that link doesn’t seem to show a prediction by Steven Goddard. Did you link to the wrong thing, AndyW?
The link is supposed to show that 2011 isn’t following 2006…i.e. it refers to the text preceding it, not following it.
-Scott
Much to do about counting angels on the head of a pin. It will all come down to whomever is doing the counting.
@ Neven and others…… I’m confused,… this is a few times I’ve seen this or something close,“I know you don’t want to commit yourself to any hard numbers, after last year’s forecasting fiasco.
Now, I’m not one to give a rat’s azz about sea ice, it doesn’t matter, but as far as I can see, Steve’s prediction out performed many experts. And, in my estimation, he nailed it….
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2010/11/search_august_forecast.png
SUYTS
As I recall there was a bit of a to do about Steve’s “prediction”. It appears that he kept lowering it until the end of july or august. Don’t have time to read all the posts on Goddard. Hard to believe you did not know about it.
This was June
“Conclusion : Should we expect a nice recovery this summer due to the thicker ice? You bet ya. Even if all the ice less than 2.5 metres thick melted this summer, we would still see a record high minimum in the DMI charts.
Bookmark this post for reference in September.”
then he put a caveat about factors that affect ice extent.
Apparently after this there was a 5.5 prediction and then after that a 5.1. Interestingly Tamino predicted 4.78 and was the closest to the actual number of just about anyone.
We most certainly did see a nice recovery. The area of multi-year ice increased by 20% last year.
Why do insist on being a moron?
lol, Tony, I’m aware of the fabricated “todo”. Click on my link provided below. Or, are you one that would hold Steven to a higher standard than NISDC? Yes, Steve adjusted his prediction. But, so did many others. Nice of you to recognize the caveat. How unfortunate you don’t know how to apply it to your reading comprehension skills.
My June forecast last year was identical to NSIDC
@Terra Incognita Communist Mexican Muslim Marxist……more likely a Socialistic Malthusian misanthropist, but I digress.
The video you posted has many factual error in its premise and it purveys throughout. and is basically a fairly tale made to intentionally misinform people. Of course, this is part and parcel of the alarmist M.O. I guess you have no problem being known as person that intentionally deceives. Contrary to what you may believe about this comment of mine, I’m here to encourage you perpetuating your attempts at deception. They are woefully transparent. This gives me hope, because transparent attempts at deception is indicative of a below normal intellect, so, it may be that you will not understand how this displays your “noble cause corruption”. Again, keep it up!!! Jim Marshal would be proud. Transparent deception? You betcha!
Interested parties can read about it all here.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/11/23/sea-ice-news-30-2010-arctic-sea-ice-summary/
Steve,
and you have provided all the information necessary to predict over 6 mil/sq. Since the official sources are obviously lying and you only tell the truth (well, except about Hansen) your fact based prediction of ice minimum around 6.5 million would totally blow all the alarmists out the water,…. er, I mean ice, when you were shown to be right.
Again late ice melt in Barrow, increase in multi year ice, extreme cold all winter and record snows, continuing La Niña. How could it possibly not be extremely higher than any of the last few years.
You are a complete moron. What in this map I published yesterday would suggest 6 million? You just pull numbers out of your nether regions.
Steve,
I am just repeating to you all the evidence you have posted this winter that shows it to be virtually impossible for ice extent not to increase dramatically from last year.
I am no expert, so I have to go on what you tell me
that map just adds MORE evidence that ice extent should be WAYYY larger than 2008.
As for the exact bet, you and many others have said repeatedly that the exact extent is determined by specific factors. NSIDC says weather over the next few weeks will determine whether the Arctic sea ice cover will again approach record lows.
So considering the facts you have continually posted about here. the extreme cold and snow this past winter, the record late melting of some polar ice, the continuing La Niña, and then this map showing a HUGE recovery of multi year ice, Why be at all hesitant about saying minimum extent will be near 6 million. that is the mark for 2006 I understand.
and here you and Joe pretty much confirm that.
joe bastardi says:
February 7, 2011 at 12:15 pm
We ought to develop an ensemble of all the ice sites… it will leave us less open to charges of cherry picking. As much as I am confident my forecast for the ice melt season to leave us at 05-06 levels or higher, as of this writing alot of the other indices
are lagging compared to this ( again I believe in the end, they will catch up)
Reply
stevengoddard says:
February 7, 2011 at 2:16 pm
Thanks Joe. It looks like your forecasts have been spot on, in sharp contrast to the failures of the UK Met Office.
You are a complete moron and you are wasting everybody’s time.
SUYTS,
You lost me. I had read that link already, and it just sounds like backtracking. From what I have read Steve and Anthony and Bustardi were all claiming a significant increase in ice minimum from at least the winter, hedged down a bit in the summer and then a month before the minimum Steve drastically reduced his prediction.
I certainly don’t give much credence to those that predicted 2 or 3 million or a relatively ice free minimum. Thanks for pointing out about NISDC, I did not know that. When did they change to their under 5 million figure? But the fact that they greatly overestimated and then drastically reduced their prediction as well, just means that they were wrong too. . Steve says they had 4.7 mil in July. On august 15 Steve wrote “Summer has come to a premature and frosty end at Santa’s workshop.”…”My forecast (dashed line below) minimum of 5.5 million (JAXA) continues to look CONSERVATIVE. It all comes down to what the winds do over the next few weeks. If the winds keep compressing the ice, the minimum may go a LITTLE below 5.5. If the winds quiesce, the minimum may come in a little above 5.5 – which is looking like a pretty good number right now.”
then on the 29th of august “It continues to look like my June forecast will be close to correct, though as we have seen – this contest is a crap shoot. It all depends on the wind.”
In these quotes he is saying that it will NOT go much below 5.5 no matter what happens. And then right afterwards he says it is all fudgey. But why is he saying 5.5 at all the end of august when his official prediction IN August was 5.1? It seems like he had information or insight no one else had in the middle of August that caused him to throw out his 5.1 prediction and go back to his original higher one. NSIDC made a moderate adjustment on their final prediction
As I keep pointing out here, from all the posts Steve has made this year pointing out the extreme cold, increasing ice thickness, increasing multi year ice, late arctic melt in places. the persistent La Niña, and just yesterday saying the current arctic is tracking 2006. How could sea ice minimum not increase dramatically from last year?
and then he taunts people for not predicting a record minimum, when in his posts last year, numerous times he (and others) explain that the exact extent is predicated on numerous factors and that the conditions in 2007 were extremely unusual.
Both Neven and Peter have offered bets that are extremely generous terms in my opinion, considering that Steve just yesterday said 2011 is tracking 2006 (July 8, 2011 at 6:54 pm).
Instead of betting. how about if we all agree that if ice minimum is larger than 2006, it is a major blow to alarmist climate change promoters, and if it is a new record minimum, deniers get a black eye?
If you read the contributions to the SEARCH Outlook you will find that the first prediction contribution from NSIDC is based on survival rates for ice of different age classes applied to the week 11 ice age. Later, the end of June extent is used to predict September minimum by using climatology rates of decline through July and August as well as rates for individual years, i.e. 2007. They are different forms of predictions and that is why the numbers differ. Ice age survival rates are clearly changing so it is likely the prediction using this method will result in an overestimation, though this June the prediction based on ice age was done with the last 4 years of survival rates to reflect the changes in survivability of the older ice. You can read the actual method on the links SEARCH provides.