« NSIDC Arctic sea ice news June 2010 | Main | Sea ice extent update 13: closing in »


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

Kevin McKinney

You're right, Neven--despite the cloudiness, the breakup of the Strait itself is quite clear (although it took me a few cycles to get oriented.) Nice. And starting with the map was very helpful, too.

What a wimpy melt total for the 7th! I've got to admit, Goddard's prediction of a downturn came true. Though the longer term result remains in doubt!


I like Goddard's latest title: Take a right turn to Ice Station Zero. From the perspective of the trend line, taking a right turn means dropping down again. :-)

Like I said in the To Melt or not to Melt: the Alarmist's Dilemma, if the minimum record isn't broken, things luckily don't seem to be progressing as fast as feared. If the minimum record does get broken, Goddard will fall in a big self-dug hole. Either way, we can't lose. ;-)

Just kidding. If Goddard's WAG turns out to be right, WUWT will have enough fuel to sputter to the demise of the El Niño and then continue the delaying for as long as the La Niña does her thing. After that they'll improvise again, as always. But WUWT is more of a symptom than a problem.

As it currently stands, 2010 is showing the same sudden levelling off 2009 did last year towards the end of July. If weather conditions don't return to or near 2007 levels, there probably won't be a new record minimum extent. But I'm still figuring out the very complex weather thing. That's the upside about this stalling melt. I want to understand what's causing it. If the melt would have continued unabated, I would just have stared at my Calc sheet all day long.



2007 was not the fastest melt over the period from now until the end of the melt. 2008 was. Further, 2009 nearly matched the average for 2007 for that 'end game' period. So there are a range of weather conditions around - 2007,2008 and 2009 - that would see it either beat the record or go very close to it. And that is assuming that the conditions now are similar to what they were in those previous years. If volume is worse and ice movement is greater - things for which there is evidence - then we do not need those kinds of weather conditions to break the record.

But my thinking is that we will not break the record, since statistically from the June NSIDC data we are looking at a September average low of around 4.85, or a likely minimum of around 4.7 million. There are relatively large error bars in there, though.


In fact, an average melt (well, the average of 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, and 2009) from here on in would see a low of around 4.6 million.

David Klein

Hi, I am new here from down-under. A couple of months ago I decided to visit Wattsupwiththat, to get a feel of how they work. No high expectations. Last night I was censored and invited to re-write a comment without using the d... word. Actually there were two d... words, denier and distortion. Not sure if both were off limits. It also included a few words of appreciation for R Gates and ANU, I admire their persistence, but that too was censored. Since I wasn't going to be there for long, I posted a final comment. I've been interested in climate change for some 25 years and the arctic has my special attention. I am glad to have discovered this site through Patrick, it has taught me a lot about arctic ice behaviour. My projection is 4.33 based simply on averages and a notion that unusual years like 2007 are not about to become serial. Thanks for your efforts, much appreciated.

David Klein

Oops forgot, just for the curious, I posted on WUWTas Curious Yellow.


Thanks, David!

Better not use the d-word over at WUWT. It makes them wear their yellow badges with even more pride.

Although technically many of them are in the psychological state of denial (almost everyone is with one subject or other) I think the word pseudo-skeptic works just as well. It's my preferred term on this blog.

David Klein

Thanks for the comment.I've forgiven myself, I was a novice blogger after all. Then again I should have felt at home there, in terms of novices that is. It feels good to share common grounds.


All blogs have a history. For the same reason (pseudo-)skeptic novices often get a not so welcome welcome on AGW blogs, although this has improved somewhat in the past year.

The comments to this entry are closed.