« Arctic sea ice melt: a correlation with ENSO? | Main | Sea ice extent update 3: where's my update? »


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Peter Ellis

One funny thing is the way Goddard's attempted to discredit the PIOMAS model by using... another model! Specifically, the older and less accurate PIPS2 model. The really funny thing is that (as Tom P shows), PIPS2 actually agrees well with PIOMAS, it's just that Goddard doesn't know how to calculate volume from the PIPS2 data.

Specifically, Goddard calculates volume as (thickness x area), which is the obvious thing to do. Unfortunately for him, it's not the correct thing to do. The PIPS2 output separates out thickness and concentration data.

Thus, looking at the thickness map, you might see a pixel displayed as having 2m ice thickness. If the concentration for that pixel is (say) 25%, then the true average thickness will only be 0.5m. The correct volume calculation for PIPS2 model needs to use both maps, and calculate volume = (thickness x area x concentration). Once you use the correct calculation, PIPS2 and PIOMAS start agreeing with each other.


Wayne Davidson over at EH2R is predicting a lower minimum than 2007. He's out there in the Canadian Arctic watching the ice daily, and so far he has a good prediction track record.

He says current conditions in the Arctic are setting up for a cloud-free summer (he calls it "Big Blue") which should greatly enhance the melt.


Aaand you mentioned Wayne Davidson right in the previous post. You can discount my previous comment. This one too.

Great blog BTW.


Thanks, Hypnos! What a coincidence you mention Wayne Davidson after I've just published a post on him. If you have any more tips for interesting theories concerning the Arctic, I'd love to hear it.

Paul van Egmond

'We Use Wishful Thinking' - Hilarious :-)

Seriously, good job on the blog, Neven! Keep it up and keep an open mind.
Best wishes,
Paul van Egmond

Kevin McKinney

Just looked at CT, which--as with NSIDC--is currently updating normally.

Couldn't help but shake my head at Goddard and PIPS. This pattern is not one of "concentrated ice," unless I'm flat nuts.

Nares & Fram both seem pretty "loose" to me, as best as one can tell at such a large scale, and there's a ton of melt in the Western Arctic. Hudson Bay is also declining rapidly.

Thinking about the AO data just posted here, I'm shaking my head once again. Very interesting times, indeed.

And, FWIW, yesterday's UAH lower trop anomaly update clocked in at .9 above last year. Still too early to count chickens, but very interesting indeed. . .

Lou Grinzo

Once again, nice site. Keep up the good work. The Reality Enhanced Community needs all the information sources like this we can get.

As for the pseudo-skeptics*, they sometimes strike me as a bunch of exceedingly sleazy used car or real estate salesmen. A car that's been in a flood has a "just scrubbed scent!', a house that was struck by a runaway truck has "a glorious new bay window!", etc.

* edited


Thanks, Paul, although I think it's practically impossible for human beings to truly keep an open mind. It's best to admit your mind isn't completely open and try to find out for yourself why it isn't. Nosce te ipsum. Oh yeah, and then be transparent about it. I'm an alarmist and I might be wrong. In fact, I'm hoping I am. And if not, I'm not really sure what can be done about it. First more people have to be convinced of the need that something needs to change. Then they need to fully understand what the root of the problem is.

Kevin, Nares and Fram look very interesting. I am preparing an animated gif to show the movements of the ice. 2-3 more days should do the trick.

Lou, I've changed your 'deniers' into 'pseudo-skeptics'. Although words like 'denier' and 'denialist' describe these persons very well, it has been spun into an insult. All we need is a good term that makes it possible to discern between the genuine skeptics and the not so genuine skeptics. For now I'm favouring 'pseudo-skeptics', but I might change it to 'people in denial' (which alludes better to the psychological state instead of the historical revisionism). I thought 'delayers' wasn't such a bad term either, but it's very spinnable. I don't have any official blog policy on that, as there haven't been any comments from pseudo-skeptics yet.

As for your used car salesmen analogy: that's precisely the reason I wrote this blog post. I had to get something down 'on digital paper' that describes the behaviour of some prominent pseudo-skeptics. And that's why it so good that Watts and Goddard have committed themselves to a hard number (instead of some meme along the line of 'the globe will start cooling some day'), deceived as they were by that late freeze-up. It has been fascinating to watch their behaviour ever since - especially Goddard's - which to me actually looks exactly like the behaviour the pseudo-skeptics accuse scientists of: arrogant, stubborn, over-confident, and a lot of circling of wagons. Again, fascinating.

It makes one almost wish the Arctic to become ice-free this summer! But more about that in a blog post later today.


Steven Goddard has revised his prediction for the 2010 minimum sea ice extent in his latest WUWT Arctic Sea Ice News (number 9):

"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).


It's official, Steven Goddard has finally committed himself to a hard number and informed us on which data set it will be based:

I’m forecasting a summer minimum of 5.5 million km², based on JAXA. i.e. higher than 2009, lower than 2006.


Another interesting Goddard quote:

The ice extent graph is running parallel to 2006 and is offset downwards due to deficiencies in regions which are normally ice free in September. There is little reason to pay attention to the ice extent graphs until at least July.

The comments to this entry are closed.