New Arctic Forecast

With Arctic sea ice volume highest since 2004, and melting second slowest on record, I am now forecasting that June will finish third highest on record, a little below 2004 and 2003 – with the slowest June melt on record.


Spreadsheet    Data

Spreadsheet    Data

Experts tell us that the slowest melt in 15 years, is the fastest melt in 1,500 years.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

47 Responses to New Arctic Forecast

  1. Andy says:

    “With Arctic sea ice volume highest since 2004, and melting second slowest on record, I am now forecasting that June will finish third highest on record, a little below 2004 and 2003”

    Considering the extent amount seems to be set to be in the top 5 lowest values it does make you wonder how DMI volume can match DMI extent? Low extent but really really thick ice in that extent?


    • AndyG55 says:

      “Low extent but really really thick ice in that extent”

      That’s why its melt slowly.

      And no, its NOT low extent, its still I the top 10% of the last 10,000 years.

      Only “low” compared to the extreme highs of the LIA and late 1970s.

      • Andy says:

        I was comparing DMI extent and volume graphs in 2018 and wondering how they will match up at the end of the melt season given difference now. More than likely they will.

        “Only “low” compared to the extreme highs of the LIA and late 1970s”

        So was the 1970’s LIA mk 2? Return of the iceage? Don’t recall people skating on the Thames when Jimmy Hendrix was living in London ….


        • AndyG55 says:

          You can remain ignorant as long as you like.

          Doesn’t bother me. :-)

          • Andy says:

            Weak repost.

          • AndyG55 says:

            Poor little andy can’t read a graph

            Oh dearie me

            Can’t see that the ice extent in the late 1970s above Iceland was as high as much of the LIA.

            They call that WILFULLY BLIND.

        • AndyG55 says:

          Late 1970s certainly cooler than around 1900

        • AndyG55 says:

          This little gem from Portugal tells a story as well

        • AndyG55 says:

          And from Ireland

          • Andy says:

            “You can remain ignorant as long as you like.

            Doesn’t bother me. :-)”

            Then AndyG55 feels the need to throw up a gut full of charts to prove the point …. so I did bother him and therefore my initial point obviously has some merit.

            It still does. Lets see how the DMI ice volume v DMI extent graphs pan out over the next 3 months.

            Hopefully they will match.


          • AndyG55 says:

            Gees , I try to help you overcome your mindless ignorance.

            …. and that’s the best you can do ?


        • AndyG55 says:

          And Eastern US winter temperatures

        • Colorado Wellington says:

          So, reader Andy, everyone here can see that you and AndyG55 were discussing Arctic ice extent and volume when you called the extent “low”.

          He wrote that it can only be called “low” when compared to ”the extreme highs of the LIA and late 1970s”. That’s obvious and well known to anyone with a rudimentary understanding of the matter and it’s embarrassing that it even has to be pointed out.

          You responded:

          ”So was the 1970’s LIA mk 2? Return of the iceage? Don’t recall people skating on the Thames when Jimmy Hendrix was living in London ….”

          What in the world does skating on the Thames has to do with Arctic sea ice extent and volume? Nobody claimed the 1970s decade was the return of the “iceage”—whatever that’s supposed to be—only that it was colder than the periods before and after, and the Arctic reflects the temperature changes, too.

          You are your own worst enemy when it comes to establishing credibility and claiming merit of your observations.

        • Griff says:

          I look at the DMI thickness chart against satellite photos and other thickness charts and it makes no sense to me…

          • AndyG55 says:

            Most things make no sense to you, that is why you continually just make things up.

            Your basic comprehension is twisted and warped by your great desire to continually wet your bed about Arctic sea ice.

            It does not allow you to see any historic perspective what so ever.

            You are a classic CLIMATE CHANGE DENIER

          • Nutation_discombobulation says:

            “Believe Nothing You Hear, and Only One Half That You See”
            E.A. Poe.

            Others have explained it to you but you don’t seem to understand. Perhaps this from a Russian Oceanologist Dr Sergey Pisarev from the Russian Academy of Sciences will convince you.
            “In the photo (a snapshot of the author) an example of the often rallied sea drifting ice in the summer. The ice surface for kilometers is covered with snow puddles – puddles of melted water. A small part of the snowflakes connects with the surface layer of the ocean through holes. In the picture, taken from a height of 180 m from the helicopter, a detaining canal is seen behind the icebreaker passed here a day ago. The thickness of ice in the areas between the snowmills is 1.2 m. When interpreting satellite images, such ice-covered fields can be shown as open water spaces. Passage of non-icebreakers by such fields is impossible”

            If you consider when broken bergs conglomerate, they no longer present a contiguous perpendicular face to the satellite instruments, and the glassy surface produced by melt water will alter the refractive index, all making the differentiation between ice and sea more difficult.

            He has further to say about the charts that are generally circulated.

            “Those pretty ice maps throughout the Arctic that are universally demonstrated with or without reference to the NSIDC (National Snow and Ice Data Center of the United States), especially in popular literature, show how the ice borders its 15% concentration as evidence of the disappearance of ice. If the concentration is above 15%, then the map shows that there is ice. If less than 15% – shows open water. At the same time, the spatial resolution of these maps (the size of the pickerel, which is colored by one color or another) is 30 km.

            Let’s imagine that 14% of the area of 30×30 km square is occupied by ice, then such an area of the Arctic Sea will be shown as ice-free. Then let’s remember what ice massifs make up the basis of the ice cover infrastructure of the Arctic seas during the thawing period. As it was established by regular air observations of the Soviet period of SMP operation, ice massifs are quasi-stationary accumulations of ice of great solidarity (7-10 points), increased thickness and hummocking.

            By definition, ice massifs are more likely to remain in the summer than completely melt. Such arrays that exist so often that they even have their own names. Northeast and Taymyrsky just can overlap the strait of Boris Vilkitsky. So, in the square of 30×30 km,
            the band (and the rarefied ice, due to the drift characteristics, very often lined up in cohesive bands) of ice 4 km wide from one side of the square to the opposite provides 14% coverage with ice and is identified as open water on popular NSIDC maps. This same band of solid ice is an insurmountable obstacle for a non-icebreaker vessel.”
            Translation > Google

          • Griff says:

            Thanks nutation… but open water is distinctively open water… not melt ponds or anything else. And there’s open water where DMI chart shows ice

          • Gator says:

            Yes, Ms Griff personally verified the fact that there are no melt ponds, or anything else. Genocidal alarmists are omniscient, just ask them.

  2. Andy says:

    More accurate current ice extent ignoring the imaginary 1m plus thick ice extent that DMI are doing.

    Also DMI now linking up with Bremen to get better results on SST but with same resolution on ice.

    On sentinel 3 satellite.


    • tonyheller says:

      The Arctic volume melt season will slow way down in 30 days, and then Andy won’t have to keep making these comments.

      • Andy says:

        It may well do and yes I am sure I will also. But not yet.

        Greenland is still in the freezer. Scientists on twitter saying the melt season has started now gone quiet…. they are such junkies like me and you and all at heart.

        I think Greenland will be the worst ablation record in a long time. And I will still be making comments on that too!


      • MrZ says:

        Looks like you are adding 2014 to the beaten lows for end of June. I stand by my promise to eat my hat come September and 2018 is lower than 2014. What are my odds you think?

        • Steven Fraser says:

          Just to be clear, what does ‘come September’ mean? is that Sept 1, or the low that 2014 reached after that.

          As you can see on the DMI graph Tony posted, 2014 had a ‘reversion to the mean’ in September, and tracked the graphed average very closely for the remainder of the year.

          I have no Idea about odds when it comes to sea ice, except that this is an even year :-)

          • MrZ says:

            I was thinking September 1st but I do appreciate lowest was later for 2014. Let’s go with September 10th. I still believe lowest 2018 will be earlier than that but it really does not matter for this bet.

          • AndyG55 says:

            If it follows just above 2014 and doesn’t have that late season dip that 2014 did, coming freeze season will be very interesting. ! :-)

            I don’t want Arctic sea ice to climb back up as part of the AMO cycle, I strongly believe that less sea ice, as for most of the Holocene, would be really great for the people living up there…

            … but to witness the Arctic bed-wetter desperation should it start to climb over the next few years , would be totally hilarious. :-)

    • AndyG55 says:

      Hopefully Bremen will be able to learn and improve their performance.

      They are , however, pretty much locked into the AGW narrative.

      Change in personnel needed perhaps

      • Andy says:

        They are in cohoots with DMI? So you saying both bad?

        Who will you accept your science from? Kim Jong Un Polar Research?

        • Disillusioned says:

          Your comments appear as an apologist waving your arms, gasping, looking for oxygen, for something, anything to keep your failing religion alive.

    • Cam says:

      NOAA is showing a lot more ice in the 1/10 to 8/10 range than Bremen is.
      We’ll see what it looks like this week, but Canadian Ice Services last week agreed with NOAA in the Canadian waters.

  3. Steven Fraser says:

    Some Numbers for 6/25 DMI sea ice volumes:

    For the most recent few calendar days, 2003 decline rate has been more than 100 cu km greater than 2018, so the gap between them is narrowing consistently. For the 25th, they were 1516 cu km apart. The 24th, they were 1700 cu km apart

    In the last few days, the 2018 decline rate has been less than 2014 was for those same days of the year.

    2018 is now 109% of the 16-year average, and 111% of the 2004-2013 DMI charted average. The 2018 rate now can be distinguished from 2014 in the diagram now as they diverge.

    Very interesting! Stay tuned.

  4. Griff says:

    third highest on record since when? 2004?

    Isn’t that ignoring some 36 years of data?

    And there is no point saying that unless you venture an opinion as to what it means as regards current and future trends…

  5. garyh845 says:

    Here’s a DMI “forecast.” In their section on the Arctic, on a page headlined, “The Frozen Sea,” here: — it’s stated:

    “During the past 10 years the melting of sea ice has accelerated, and especially during the ice extent minimum in September large changes are observed. The sea ice in the northern hemisphere have never been thinner and more vulnerable.”
    Tony’s been taking that second statement down quite well, in recent posts, but I took a stab at the first one. A couple months back, sending them a note including a chart of the summer min. sea ice extent since 2007. It clearly shows that there has been no further downward trend during the past decade. I suggested that they correct the false statement.

    5-6 email exchanges later, including one offering that this was complicated and would take longer to resolve, I finally received this today:

    Hi Gary

    I see your point and will take contact to the group responsible for the text.

    Kind regards



    Well see. Then, perhaps it’s onto that second sentence.

    • Steven Fraser says:

      Well done, Gary!

    • AndyG55 says:

      They still have the statement “The sea ice in the northern hemisphere have never been thinner and more vulerable”

      This is manifestly WRONG.. An opinion based on ignorance.

      There was FAR less sea ice in the MWP and any time before it in the current interglacial.

      • garyh845 says:

        Reminds me ( and thanks, you and Steven) I’ve run across a couple of references (in studies, etc) suggesting that all of the glaciers in the Sierra Nevada range in CA, completely disappeared during the MWP – only to reform and advance as we approached the LIA. I’m a little suspect about Mt. Shasta being included in that; but, looking for more info. Similar geologic evidence has been out there for Glacier National Park (below a certain latitude).
        Needless to say, anytime someone says to me that the glaciers are melting in CA . . . I respond, with, “again?” I love the reactions.

        • spike55 says:

          Mt Baker, just over the hill from Glacier NP (I think.. do not trust my US geography ) shows a very distinct cyclic pattern which seems to be based closely on the AMO.

          Here I have flipped and aligned to show what I mean.

          spike55 (aka AndyG55)

  6. Steven Fraser says:

    Upthread, there was some discussion about the existence, or not, of ‘gamed data’ (my term).

    Curious about this, over the week-end I reviewed copies of the early IPCC reports, to see how things were represented. Here is what I found.

    In the FAR (1990) and SAR (1995) Arctic sea ice extent was represented as charts of monthly anomalies, 1 vertical line per month They are quite consistent with each other, and show, as Tony has said many times, that Satellite data from pre-1979 reveals below-average ice extent for that part of the period graphed, and that in both reports the data source is attributed to NOAA, digitized from Satellite observations.

    What I had forgotten, is that the text describes the % of sea ice which qualifies as ‘10%’ when gridded.

    Commentary in both reports also comments that while there is variability, there is no clear trend.

    The associated image shows clips of those two charts, scaled vertically so that the prominent anomaly highs and lows (allowing for issues of clarity in the 1990 chart) can be seen. The baseline changes only slightly, but the two charts do not use the same averaging algorithm.

    In the next post, I will show and discuss how this is graphed and described in the TAR (2001) and compare it to the FAR, with the two charts stacked.

  7. Steven Fraser says:

    So, between the SAR and the TAR, Arctic Sea ice representation went through a profound change. In the associated graph, the SAR chart is shown above the TAR chart, with vertical quidelines added by me to show the alignment of the 1973 and 1995 years which are the span of the SAR report.

    The contours of these two reports are different. Conspicuously lacking in the SAR version is the lower-sea-ice-years in the early 1970s. How is this possible?

    To the right of the TAR diagram is the legend which appears below it in the original report document. It mentions that the diagram is a ‘blend’ of information from 3 different published papers, credited, and that the Great Lakes are included.

    IMO, this is an example of gaming the data. The results of four separate reports are combined without differentiating them, and large freshwater areas are included in a manner that prevents understanding of their influence, while labeling the graph as ‘sea ice’.

    The visual effect of this conflation is to expand the anomaly range by +.5 million sq km (1978), and -.4 million sq km (1995). The high-ice years of 1983 and 85-86 are reduced in intensity.

    In the next post, I will show and discuss the equivalent chart from AR4, 2005.

  8. Steven Fraser says:

    Finally, here are the charts in AR4 (2005) and AR5(2013).

    On top, the chart has now gone from monthly to yearly anomalies, and beginning in 1979. Below that, is the chart from AR5, but with four very interesting changes. 1) This diagram is not in anomalies, it is in millions of sq km. 2) it covers the time period from 1850 to 2012. 3)it combines, with color-codes, results from 6 different sources, and 4) It contains error bars for the Walsh, Hadley, and SBA results.

    In AR4, the term ‘Nearly Ice Free Arctic Ocean’ is defined, and here is what it says:
    ‘Sea ice extent less than 10^6 km^2 for at least 5 consecutive years in September…’
    They go on to state that it is ‘likely’ before mid-century under RCP8.5 (medium confidence) based on models that most closely reproduce the climatological mean state and 1979-2012 trend of Arctic sea ice cover.

    What is missing in this progression of charts (across all the posts) is the transition between 10% ice, and 15% ice. To understand where that occurs it is necessary to review the source documents and their varying methodologies.

    I hope this was helpful.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.