The map above overlays the NSIDC ice age map from April on the current JAXA map. Green is MYI (multi-year ice) and turquoise is 1-2 year old ice. So far the MYI is holding up very nicely. There is very little ice loss occurring in the Beaufort Sea and almost none in the Arctic Basin.
If current patterns continue for the next six weeks, a lot of 1-2 ice will become MYI in mid-September, and we will once again see an increase in MYI – as we have every year since 2008. It appears that there may be a large increase in 3+ year old ice.
So far my forecast appears to be right on track.
hmm doesn’t look all that much different to me than it did last year, the year before, … except that there was some ice loss the year before last from wind that took some Arctic Sea ice into the Barents.
Anyway I once asked a tsunami expert if the tsunami of 2005 in the South Indian Ocean could have resulted in a slowdown of the Gulf Stream and North Atlantic currents, resulting in Arctic ice loss because of water languishing too long in the summer Arctic sun. He said no, because there was no thermohaline convection pattern characteristic of that. But something caused a Gulf Stream slowdown that year and the year following (amid uproar of alarmists)
As if the Coriolis force of the rotating Earth was going to cease as a result of carbon dioxide in the air
MYI increased last year and the year before.
“MYI increased last year and the year before.”
So let me see, MYI is increasing while extent is decreasing. That’s like a person getting shorter and shorter while getting fatter and fatter. When the extent gets down to 2 million k will it get twice as thick to keep the volume the same?
And by the time it gets down to 1 million k will the ice get 4 times as thick? Otherwise Steve, you’ll have to admit that volume has to decrease as the extent goes down, down, down. 🙂
By the way, here’s a pretty picture. Which one do you think will open first? NW of NE?
http://www.iup.uni-bremen.de:8084/amsr/arctic_AMSRE_nic.png
What was the extent of it during 1900-1920? You don’t know because nobody mapped it, but it looks from reports of travels north of the Arctic Circle that a lot of it was open water then that is not now.
You have absolutely no way to connect “global warming” with “arctic sea ice extent” because there is no means by which an additional fraction of the Solar radiance in the IR could start melting some ice.
People just get bonkers with this global warming thing, they lose common sense, they lose all sense of proportion and understanding (if they had any to start).
Brian:
If they do not have it to start with there is nothing to lose. It is a common trait and probably a precondition to be a member of the Chicken Little Brigade that they fail a common sense test.
Brian G Valentine says:
July 17, 2011 at 5:30 am
And this is the most important part of the Arctic sea ice situation – attribution. No one has shown that recent losses are due to GHGs. They assume it is and go nuts on it, but they still can’t do it. When prompted (see Tamino’s comments section for instance), they say to just look at the trend and it’s obvious. True, but correlation isn’t causation.
The CAGWers have made the Arctic Sea Ice a major icon, perhaps the number one icon. In that way, it’s unlike Lake Powell, which they now try to write off as a short-lived poster boy. If for some reason the sea ice starts definitively increasing, it’ll be interesting to see what the reaction is.
-Scott
Nothing you said has anything to do with the amount of MYI. Do you just like to babble?
Ill, that’s a riot. We were once told that even though ice extended, it was rotten ice. It didn’t carry any weight, but now, now the the MYI is increasing, it doesn’t matter. Yeh,ok, fine.
Here’s what I’ll bet, if and when the arctic is totally without ice, nothing will happen. Our stock market will still ring the bell, our congress will still be divided, our president will still be brain dead (yes, the name will change, but the lobe functionality will still be the same.) Our government will continue to obstruct exceptionalism while other nations will embrace it. The death rate will continue to lower and the world will continue to spin.
There might be one consequence – global warmers in apoplectic shock and unable to make the shrill noises if they are able to function at all.
Okay, I gotta give you props for that. That was funny. Perhaps the first time ever that you did not come off as a raving lunatic.
Good one. Congratulations 🙂
But you should have stopped right there! Everything after that was pure drama queen hysterics.
I don’t believe there is any law of physics that says you can’t have a smaller volume of total ice with a higher volume of thick ice.
Meanwhile, back in the real world:
Ice in the Beaufort sea is at least a third lower than the historical average (anomaly of ~1 million, remaining total ~1.75 million).
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/recent365.anom.region.11.html
The entire “arm” of multiyear ice you pointed at is currently at 50-70% concentration.
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/NEWIMAGES/arctic.seaice.color.003.png
As yet you have not dared to make a bet with me, even on your own forecast.
http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2011/07/15/finally-some-winners/#comment-70493
Hi Steve, can you retrieve my previous comment from the moderation queue?
Right, we’ve agreed a bet in principle. Fancy fleshing out some of the actual details? Like, how much? Also, you’ve still not clarified the most important question: are you OK to bet on the total amount of multi-year ice, rather than the proportion of multi-year ice?
The latter makes no sense – see for example 2007 where the proportion of MYI left at the end of the season actually increased relative to 2006 despite being the worst melt in the satellite record.
Thus, after some consideration, my final offer is to bet £50 that the total MYI (note: total, not proportion) will be lower in September 2011 than in September 2010.
My bet offer is record minimum vs. not. Should be a no-brainer for you. I have been completely clear about that.
As far as I can tell from satellite maps, little or no MYI has melted in the Beaufort sea. The arm was never more than 70% MYI.
Why don’t you want to bet on your own forecast of increased MYI at the end of summer? Don’t you believe it? More to the point, if you won’t bet on your own forecast, what grounds do you have to ask anyone else to bet on theirs?
That is exactly the bet I am offering. Increased MYI at the end of the summer relative to last year.
OK, I’ll take you up on that if we can agree terms. How much do you want to bet as a private individual it’s not going to be a lot – say £50 UK pounds?. Are you betting on the amount of 2+-year ice, the amount of 3+-year ice, or even older categories? Whose figures will we be using?
Most importantly, are you betting on the absolute area of MYI, or the proportion of the total? It’s quite possible that if there’s a major drop in extent this year, we could see MYI go down in absolute terms but still constitute a higher proportion of the remaining ice.
I strongly suggest that you don’t make this bet. Look at this image :
Green is September, 2010 MYI and light blue is April 2011 MYI. Unless 2/3 of the April MYI melts, I win, and most of it is located in regions that never melt.
Why didn’t you compare like for like? The comparison you want to make is April 2011 to April 2010. Here are some source images:
http://nsidc.org/images/arcticseaicenews/20110405_Figure5.png
http://nsidc.org/images/arcticseaicenews/20100406_Figure6.png
The total multi-year ice (I deduce from your blink picture that you mean 2+ year ice) is a little higher this year, but it looks as though somewhat more of it is in the Beaufort: where it will melt out this year just as it did last year. There was also a bit of MYI north of Svalbard this year which is mostly gone already.
You may be basing your confidence on the big blob of MYI over the Pole in April 2011. This misses the fact that there was MYI over the pole last year as well, which melted out (or was advected through the Fram strait) between April and September.
I’m happy to make the bet: are you?
My forecast is September 2011 MYI area vs September 2010 MYI area. What is wrong with that?
The forecast’s fine: I’m talking about your blink comparison in the comments:
http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2011/07/17/my-arctic-forecast-at-the-half-way-point/#comment-71077
It would be handy for this to compare April 2010 to April 2011 so it’s like-for-like. As it stands you’re comparing an April image to a September image and saying the former has more MYI. No shit, Sherlock, as they say.
No, the comparison for the bet would be NSIDC September 2011 imagery vs. NSIDC September 2010 imagery. Why are you making this so complicated?
Of course the bet is for September vs. September. Pick a figure and put up your money.
Your reasoning (from the blink comparator) for advising me against it is bogus, because you are comparing September to April. MYI in April 2010 was located very similarly to April 2011, in similar amounts.
I’m showing you why you have almost no chance of winning the bet.
*shrug* I think you’re wrong. Are you betting, or not?
Sure
As long as the time periods are kept the same (i.e., comparing Sept 2010 MYI to Sept 2011 MYI or April 2011 MYI to April 2012 MYI), I think Steve loses this bet. The largest loss of MYI is NOT during the melt season, but during the winter months as ice transport takes over as the predominant factor. The transport of MYI out of Fram Strait has been well documented. The transport through Nares is now becoming a major factor. In addition, there are summer melt incursions occurring on the west coast of the Canadian Archipelago; this was always regarded as one of the last bastions of MYI.
Anyone betting on sea ice extent increases, volume increases, or MYI increases is betting against the odds. All the trends are for decreasing extent, volume, and MYI. Now, any given year can see natural variability push a number off trend (high or low), but the trends are pretty clear. And there is no comparison to what we were observing just 10 or 20 years ago. The MYI in 1988 was predominantly ALL more than 5 years of age occupying most of the Arctic basin. Now there are only small slivers of MYI 5+ years of age and the extent of all MYI is nowhere near the extent of 1988.
The question is: Are the last 3 years of MYI increase a new pattern, or just natural variability/noise riding on a decades long trend? Steve is betting it’s a new trend. Given that 2011 is outpacing the ice losses seen in 2007, that’s a really iffy bet.
Do you think we will have a winter between now and September?
Kevin, I think we can thank ExxonMobil for most of that ice loss……
Icebreakers job is to break up ice dams, and it’s mostly the ice dams that have kept ice from blowing out in the past….
I’ve been working on a log of ships, when and where, for a while.
Ice breakers have increased 40 times per month since the late 70’s………
Interesting.
Ever wonder why the Russians built new nuclear powered super fortified icebreakers?
So they can run – nonstop – back and forth………..
I’m interested to know the history of icebreakers from 1980-2000
I’ll work on it and get you that……
You’ll like this, here’s how destructive a really good icebreaker can be………
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VVtDX46cTJQ
Russia maintains a fleet of 75 icebreakers. Other than port maintenance, they are working around the clock………..
Here’s the Yamal, the absolute coolest of all……..
http://www.dieselduck.net/historical/02%20articles/ns_Yamal.02.jpg
The old saying was that if you had seen one tree ring you had seen Yamal. Now if you see ice loss you have seen Yamal! Interesting choice for a name! Of course the name was picked before Briffra’s contribution to Pathological science / climate phrenology!