[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3VE0KbqKoOI]
Best watched in 480p resolution. Each ring represents 100,000 km² forecast error.
Disclaimers : I would never shoot a cute little bear. September isn’t over yet. A lot can still happen to the ice.
Disrupting the Borg is expensive and time consuming!
Google Search
-
Recent Posts
- “Impossible Heatwaves”
- Billion Dollar Electric Chargers
- “Not A Mandate”
- Up Is Down
- The Clean Energy Boom
- Climate Change In Spain
- The Clock Is Ticking
- “hottest weather in 120,000 years”
- “Peace, Relief, And Recovery”
- “Earth’s hottest weather in 120,000 years”
- Michael Mann Hurricane Update
- Michael Mann Hurricane Update
- Making Themselves Irrelevant
- Michael Mann Predicts The Demise Of X
- COP29 Preview
- UK Labour To Save The Planet
- A Giant Eyesore
- CO2 To Destroy The World In Ten Years
- Rats Jumping Off The Climate Ship
- UK Labour To Save The Planet
- “False Claims” And Outright Lies”
- Michael Mann Cancelled By CNN
- Spoiled Children
- Great Lakes Storm Of November 11, 1835
- Harris To Win Iowa
Recent Comments
- Greg in NZ on “Impossible Heatwaves”
- czechlist on “Impossible Heatwaves”
- arn on Up Is Down
- arn on Up Is Down
- conrad ziefle on Up Is Down
- conrad ziefle on Up Is Down
- arn on “Impossible Heatwaves”
- conrad ziefle on “Not A Mandate”
- arn on Climate Change In Spain
- conrad ziefle on “Impossible Heatwaves”
Where’s Walt Meier? He should be having second thoughts about his prediction of “not ‘if’ but ‘when'” Arctic ice free summers.
Steven, I believe you wrote on June 14th: “My analysis indicates the highest late summer extent since 2006.”
The (absolute) minimum extent in 2006 was 5.78 million square km, so that’s a little bit more than 500,000 square km over 2009 (5.74 million square km) on which your first prediction was based.
Show the whole picture: you went from approximately 5.7 million to 5.5 million to your current 5.1 million, yes?
I’ve only seen him predict 5.5. People like you keep saying he had other numbers. Why do you guys keep making these things up? Anyone can go to the Sea Ice threads at WUWT and check for themselves that you guys are making these various numbers up. Or, you are falsly attributing these numbers to Steven Goddard when they belong to someone else.
Amino, here are the WUWT links:
Prediction: Arctic Ice Will Continue to Recover This Summer (February 9th 2010): “Steven Goddard writes below that he agrees with the prediction I made in late 2009 that we’d see another 500,000 km2 of Arctic sea ice recovery in 2010.”
500,000 square km more than 2009 minimum extent would be 5.75 million square km.
WUWT Arctic Sea Ice News #9 (June 14th 2010): “My analysis indicates the highest late summer extent since 2006.”
2006 minimum extent was 5.78 million square km.
And then finally, Sea Ice News #10 (notice how ‘WUWT Arctic’ disappeared from ‘WUWT Arctic Sea Ice News’?): “I’m forecasting a summer minimum of 5.5 million km², based on JAXA. i.e. higher than 2009, lower than 2006.”
So the prediction went from approximately 5.75 to 5.5 to 5.1 million square km. Nothing wrong with that, but let’s be transparent about it and not invent a parallel reality. I’m referring to Amino here.
If you only saw Steven predict 5.5 that could mean that a) I’m making it up, or b) you didn’t see everything, possibly because you’re not looking. In this case I think I have conclusively proven it was b).
I think this happens to you much more often than you’re aware of. Becoming aware of this in yourself is true wealth. Know thyself.
Neven,
The only forecast which I made prior to August was 5.5 million.
Steven, what about those links and quotes?
Wow. Anything to delude yourself you’re the greatest….
I can forecast the weather. It’s cloudy. See, all I had to do was look out of the window.
Forecast next year’s minimum ice extent, and we might be less derisory. Will it “recover” next year? The year after? *rolls eyes*
[Reply : I have been publishing my forecasts every few days since June, when levels were over 10 million km^2. I am playing by the same rules as every one else]
You are aware that the PIPS2 ice thickness data represents the thickest ice expected in an area, not the average thickness?
If you really did use the procedure you describe, you got lucky.
But your credibility is in the toilet, so I don’t imagine you really did any of the stuff you say you did.
[Reply : I am aware that PIPS is conservative. Like I said earlier, my methodology and results have been well documented in dozens of posts on WUWT. Please read through them before launching personal attacks]
Here is my June forecast :
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/06/23/sea-ice-news-10/
2010 is not going to be higher than 2009 on JAXA, though it may well be on DMI and NORSEX.
It’s true, Didactylos. Steven has been pretty consistent all through the melting season.
He even predicted the downturn (or upturn I should perhaps say) in the melt a few days in advance. The only thing that bothered me about that was that he didn’t explain why the melt would stall. It took me a while to figure out this had to do with the Beaufort Gyre reversing, this in turn caused by low-pressure areas dominating the Arctic and pushing aside the high over the Beaufort Sea that is quite important during the melt season. Not only with regards to ice displacement (like it is now, at the end of the season), but perhaps even more because high-pressure systems mean a lot less clouds. This is of course very influential at the time when the sun is highest (in July).
But if my memory serves me right Steve never said it was because the winds turned and thus the BG stalled, and clouds were reducing insolation. I think his reasoning was that all the ‘easy’ ice had melted out and the thick ice was now resisting ice melting conditions. Too bad this coincided with a complete reversal in atmospheric patterns that lasted for 6 weeks.
But despite all this sea ice extent is still pretty low (and not even because compaction is such a big factor like it was at the end of the 2007 melting season). When I look at satellite images and sea ice concentration maps I can’t help but think that volume must be very low as well. We’ll be sure when CryoSat-2 data becomes available.
But I think the downward trend in Arctic sea ice extent, area and volume is still continuing. There is no recovery (yet).
Why aren’t there people lining up to criticize the PIOMAS predictions? Why aren’t there any people even talking about PIOMAS now, either good or bad? I haven’t seen the acronym ‘PIOMAS’ in a few weeks. Are the same people who went on and on about PIOMAS just 2 months ago now distancing themselves from it because it is so sorely wrong?
We will know how wrong or not the PIOMAS volume model is when we can compare it to CryoSat-2 data.
Now, if you are referring to the PIOMAS-based prediction by Jinlun Zhang from the Polar Science Center of the Applied Physics Laboratory at the University of Washington, I believe currently his September 2010 arctic sea ice extent prediction is 4.8 million square kilometers. That’s on the low side, but not that spectacular that people should be “lining up to criticize the PIOMAS predictions”.
BTW, if you would read their websites carefully you would see caveats such as these:
The exact thickness of the ice in spring that might survive depends on the location and on the air temperatures and cloud cover during the summer, both of which are not possible to predict more than a week or so into the future. Also, the ice extent is strongly dependent on the winds, as we saw in the summer of 2007. It is not possible to accurately predict the strength and direction of the winds months in advance. Depending on the air pressure patterns, the winds may or may not herd the remaining ice to one side of the basin, thus reducing the extent. What we do know is that the reduced ice thickness of recent years will lead to much more variability in the fall ice area and extent because the open water created during the summer is more sensitive to the initial ice conditions and the amount of melt. We still have a lot to learn about seasonal ice prediction.
and
The purpose of the seasonal predictions of arctic sea ice is for scientific research and education only. There are many uncertainties with the predictions and the results must be viewed with caution.