Arctic Sea Ice Discussion 2015: The Melt Season

[stewfox]

Ok....

 

Well as you're fond of using the term, maybe you could give your definition of 'recovery'?

Bear in mind that you suggested a 5.8m minimum ADS/IJIS extent earlier this year.

 

The quotes you have posted were largely tongue in cheek.

 

For me recovery is stabilization then a small increase rather then back to 1980s and it hasn't happened this year.

Edited September 19, 2015 by stewfox

[Midlands Ice Age]

Ok....

 

 

 

 

Well as you're fond of using the term, maybe you could give your definition of 'recovery'?

Bear in mind that you suggested a 5.8m minimum ADS/IJIS extent earlier this year.

 

I see that Stew, has responded to this.

 

It is really scraping the barrel, in order to find a denier who forecast recovery.

 

Stew clearly was having a joke in his whistling icon and in the other he stated that conditions at that time  'could'  lead to a recovery.

This is not calling it a recovery. So the 'evidence' is still not forthcoming. As I suggested you and others  are creating a strawman arguments in order to draw attention away from the fact that it was not a disastrous season. It could have been much worse as the warmers postings seem to suggest and that is all we are claiming.

 

As for 'Four' he is simply our answer to GW. Would you like me to look back at some of his forecasts/ Including his 4th year forecast of ice below 3million kilo squared!  Come on guys.....

 

 

However back to speculation and 'theoreticising' now the ice melt season is over. There must be a word!!.

.

I think the situation in Chukchi and north of Siberia look 'bad' and possibly worrysome. But I seem to remember we were in a similar situation around the North of Greenland area (due to the Fram migration losses), I wont rake out GW' forecasts at the time,  but this has reversed and we now have plenty of 3-4 years old ice in the area with depths of 2.5 to 4 meters.

 

So who knows.  The outcome will be determined by the weather in the Arctic over the next 2 - 5  years, not the models..

 

The other aspect I think may well be important is the apparent possible close-down of the North Atlantic current. This seems to be occuring at the same time as the Bering Straits story unfolds. I personally believe that a close down of Fram will be much more important to the Arctic ice than warmer air pumping up through the B Straits, (particularly now that most of the ice has gone to the north of Siberia). It would appear as though this effect has something to do with GW's permanent high pressure in Alaska. How much longer will it last?. Will we then get the return of the really cold Siberian winters? 

 

If we are genuinely seeing a slowing of the North Atlantic then this might well last up to 40 years.     How long will GW's  anticyclone last?

 

So an awful lot we do not know, but it is getting desperate to introduce strawman arguments to support your own positions.

[Midlands Ice Age]

There's a word for people who consistently deny the existence of evidence that goes against their beliefs...

 

Sea ice in the 80s being a high point? Lets see who's suddenly an expert on proxy data and willing to selectively dismiss proxy records!

 

 

 

As for the use of the word recovery, in this thread alone it's been used by 4wd, Keith and Stew, each multiple times. I wonder just how many more references to recovery would be found by AGW "sceptics" elsewhere on this forum?

 

As far as I can remember, I've always called for the first ice free conditions to occur in the 2020s. And numerous times I've explained to people that the consensus position has never been for ice free conditions early this century, but closer to the middle. 

 

But in the minds of some, only "warmists" used the term "recovery", and "warmists" never disagreed with Wadhams... what can you do when evidence matters nowt!?

 

Nice friendly post BFTV....

 

What I am actually saying - This years melt season has not been as disastrous as the warmists would like to believe.

 

Why?

 

According to NSIDC the ice today is similar to the situation at the the end of the 2012 melt season. The only slight problem is that there is an extra half a million kilo squared. I must admit that the shape of the graph is similar to that of 2012, but it is about 15% more extensive with increased volume

So claims by warmists that the situation is bordering catastrophic - let them look at what happened in 2013!.

 

So we have no idea what this season will bring..

 

I must admit that I was a bit disappointed by your highly rated response.

 

I thought that the Mann technique of combining only moderate proxies with current actual figures  had been derided by enough scientists as an incorrect analytical technique (on the grounds that it would not pass any stringent evaluation of any error bars (if they were used!).

 

However you obviously understand the techniques better than people  like McIntyre and Mosher!          So you present it as fact.

 

Ok then,

 

According to your graph above  the average minimum was about 10 million sq Kilo for about 1400 years. Only dropping when the Little Ice Age was at its maximum!!! A severe drop from 1550 to about 1800!. I would have thought that was unlikely ( to say the least).

 

So I checked back on what it was actually saying.

 

Assuming that the ice dropped about 40% only from max to min (today its about 50%), then the max figures for this period would be about 20 million sq kilo. I believe that the ice would have stretched to below 60 degrees to achieve this number. In other words not far off Northern Scotland.

 

So it discounts all history. If it were true then  how would the Vikings have  establish communities in southern Greenland, (with grapevines, no less) in about 950 - 1000AD?. Oh yes there would have been able to walk across the ice!.

 

Not enough yet? How would they have managed to have extended their communities right up the coast of Greenland?

 

How would the early explorers ( going from the west to east) have got as far as the northern Canadian islands, before turning back. Yes straight thru the Bering Straits. How could the explorers have got thru to the Princess Elizabeth Islands going from east to west.. This was all happening in the period from the 15th century to the 18th century. How is it that explorers in the mid 19th century actually got thru apart  from a 200 mile sledge ride to safety.

 

All of this early exploration was done with sail only.

 

Even when we get to the 20th century when explorers did break through they had major problems. But they were able to get through even 100 years ago  (without ice breakers). Surely this tells you something!

 

Even today the North west route has only just been declared open 13th September. This is only after they have been ploughing up and down the area with 2 icebreakers capable of slicing ice over 2 meters thick! The northern sea route (required to be used by large ships), is still not open..

They have only opened the southern route after recommending that any boats attempting it  stay with the ice-breakers. Remember it would not have been possible even now without the ice breakers.Yes even with the agreed accepted values of the ice today.

 

The Canadian ice service have stated that it is still too dangerous to go thru unaccompanied.

 

So your proxy data is highly suspect.. As I said above you CANNOT mix a proxy apple with a pear actual. All you will get is a poxy banana!.

 

More  evidence (actual data) required for me to believe, whatever that makes me!!!

[knocker]

To avoid any confusion, and of course any misrepresentation, the Kinnard, et al, letter from which the graph was taken.

 

https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CC0QFjABahUKEwiUt72pi4TIAhULWRoKHUe_AC8&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.st-andrews.ac.uk%2F~rjsw%2FPalaeoPDFs%2FKinnardetal2011.pdf&usg=AFQjCNEvnFBMGAjR08vPYa3K8_YjeXyayQ&sig2=VTXsBwp5RxoVYpuFR1-EHg

Edited September 19, 2015 by knocker

[Midlands Ice Age]

To avoid any confusion, and of course any misrepresentation, the Kinnard, et al, letter from which the graph was taken.

 

https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CC0QFjABahUKEwiUt72pi4TIAhULWRoKHUe_AC8&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.st-andrews.ac.uk%2F~rjsw%2FPalaeoPDFs%2FKinnardetal2011.pdf&usg=AFQjCNEvnFBMGAjR08vPYa3K8_YjeXyayQ&sig2=VTXsBwp5RxoVYpuFR1-EHg

 

Thanks knocker...

 

A very interesting report, which I will read again and comment on in full later.

 

MIA

 

On first glance it does pick out most of the points I raised in my post to BFTV. (ie lower ice extent in the mini ice age).

It also  talks about a sea ice minimum around the time of the Viking travels to Greenland.

 

The latter ws not displayed on the graph produced by BFTV.

 

So it is feasible, But it doesn't seem to address the issue of the massive extent of the ice sheets it is continually reporting for summer (unless it is saying that sea ice hardly varies during the year!?)  Wouldn't many areas  have spent the last 1450 years under ice in the northern winter if  it  was correct! Probably even down as far as Scotland.

 

Must re-read!

 

 

The other problem is it says that the Icelandic proxies and temps did not fit the rest of the Arctic proxies! I wonder why that might be.

[knocker]

Thanks knocker...

 

A very interesting report, which I will read again and comment on in full later.

 

MIA

 

On first glance it does pick out most of the points I raised in my post to BFTV. (ie lower ice extent in the mini ice age).

It also  talks about a sea ice minimum around the time of the Viking travels to Greenland.

 

The latter ws not displayed on the graph produced by BFTV.

 

So it is feasible, But it doesn't seem to address the issue of the massive extent of the ice sheets it is continually reporting for summer (unless it is saying that sea ice hardly varies during the year!?)  Wouldn't many areas  have spent the last 1450 years under ice in the northern winter if  it  was correct! Probably even down as far as Scotland.

 

Must re-read!

 

 

The other problem is it says that the Icelandic proxies and temps did not fit the rest of the Arctic proxies! I wonder why that might be.

 

That's quite interesting. In your first reply above you state

 

 

So your proxy data is highly suspect.. As I said above you CANNOT mix a proxy apple with a pear actual. All you will get is a poxy banana!.

 

and it now appears that you were questioning the proxy data without having read the paper by Kinnard so had no way of knowing which data he was using. You are up to your usual tricks of posting somewhat patronizing opinions as a proxy for scientific rebuttal. You CANNOT mix unsupported opinions with scientific analysis. It seems to me a lot of posts recently have been tip toeing around the new guide lines in order to continue the for and against debate. Your mention of McIntyre (not forgetting he was part of the Michael Mann witchunt that proved to be false) so perhaps a link to his comments on the paper would have been appropriate.

 

https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=6&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CFAQFjAFahUKEwiQ3MiO7YTIAhUFndsKHUgRBDo&url=http%3A%2F%2Fclimateaudit.org%2F2011%2F12%2F05%2Fkinnard-arctic-o18-series%2F&usg=AFQjCNFALDsgQpkQ-3PlIEaE-mp8868dsQ&sig2=Kyzyy6VNWjCOHrG2F_32vA

 

 

Regarding your comment concerning the LIA perhaps

 

 

Surprisingly, sea ice shows signs of decline during the “little ice age†when it might naively be expected to increase. The authors suggest that transport of heat into the high Arctic may have been responsible, so this episode would represent one version of “heat piracy†in which the cooling in Europe and elsewhere was accompanied by warming of the Arctic. Likewise, the pre-industrial minimum in the year 640 coincides with what they refer to as the “dark ages cold period,†and may similarly represent the diversion of heat (perhaps by ocean currents) to the Arctic.

 

This and a brief discussion of the proxies here.

 

https://tamino.wordpress.com/2011/12/02/1400-years-of-arctic-ice/

 

And a brief overview:

 

Reconstruction of past sea ice extent

 

https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=7&ved=0CFcQFjAGahUKEwiQ3MiO7YTIAhUFndsKHUgRBDo&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.pages.unibe.ch%2Fdownload%2Fdocs%2Fnewsletter%2F2013-1%2FPAGESnews_2013_1-30-31-Gersonde-De-Vernal.pdf&usg=AFQjCNGnNpQG83tYKanUbCZlyhljEKgqZg&sig2=IOVxM-SjBcrkWIiG97v5ow&cad=rja

 

Conclusion

 

If you and others are going to repeatable question past reconstructions as not being 'evidenced' base then it is up to you to produce a scientific repudiation, not just opinion, otherwise this area is going to return to the dark ages.

Edited September 20, 2015 by knocker

[Midlands Ice Age]

That's quite interesting. In your first reply above you state

 

 

and it now appears that you were questioning the proxy data without having read the paper by Kinnard so had no way of knowing which data he was using. You are up to your usual tricks of posting somewhat patronizing opinions as a proxy for scientific rebuttal. You CANNOT mix unsupported opinions with scientific analysis. It seems to me a lot of posts recently have been tip toeing around the new guide lines in order to continue the for and against debate. Your mention of McIntyre (not forgetting he was part of the Michael Mann witchunt that proved to be false) so perhaps a link to his comments on the paper would have been appropriate.

 

https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=6&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CFAQFjAFahUKEwiQ3MiO7YTIAhUFndsKHUgRBDo&url=http%3A%2F%2Fclimateaudit.org%2F2011%2F12%2F05%2Fkinnard-arctic-o18-series%2F&usg=AFQjCNFALDsgQpkQ-3PlIEaE-mp8868dsQ&sig2=Kyzyy6VNWjCOHrG2F_32vA

 

 

Regarding your comment concerning the LIA perhaps

 

 

This and a brief discussion of the proxies here.

 

https://tamino.wordpress.com/2011/12/02/1400-years-of-arctic-ice/

 

And a brief overview:

 

Reconstruction of past sea ice extent

 

https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=7&ved=0CFcQFjAGahUKEwiQ3MiO7YTIAhUFndsKHUgRBDo&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.pages.unibe.ch%2Fdownload%2Fdocs%2Fnewsletter%2F2013-1%2FPAGESnews_2013_1-30-31-Gersonde-De-Vernal.pdf&usg=AFQjCNGnNpQG83tYKanUbCZlyhljEKgqZg&sig2=IOVxM-SjBcrkWIiG97v5ow&cad=rja

 

Conclusion

 

If you and others are going to repeatable question past reconstructions as not being 'evidenced' base then it is up to you to produce a scientific repudiation, not just opinion, otherwise this area is going to return to the dark ages.

 

Knocker...

 

I have re-read the document now..

 

The points you make above are good and I was going to  try and reproduce the quotation from the LIA you have posted above.

 

You say I have produced no actual evidence for my initial post. Its true I didn't have the paper at the time, but doubts are still valid.

 

My points about the exploration of the Arctic were taken from Wiki and lots of other GOGLE search references I went thru as I have 'researched' the history of North West passage and I am afriad it does conflict.

 

There were  MANY other cases I could have sited, ( including a wooden boat which did the two way crossing of the North Passage during the world war2, over 2 or 3 years).

 

So the ice could not have been that thick during the time I quote above.     In fact if we did not use icebreakers the passage would not be open today despite the massive ice losses recorded. Note that sometimes the ice in this area will continue melting until the end of October,s o it may still change.

 

Now I have admitted that the report does  show some  periods of less ice in the 1450 years. and I happy to agree it is the best attempt they could make to produce something that the warmist brigade could support..

 

But I notice 4 things in it which raise my doubts (and this agrees with my original sceptical post)  -

 

1) They have rejected an awful lot of data prior to the 18th century which does not conform with the basic premise. It appears that more than 50% was rejected for the earlier periods. Is this data showing higher ice extents? (I very much doubt it, otherwise it would have been showing an  ice age! So I would suspect that a lot of the decreased ice proxies have been removed.

 

It has been admitted that Iceland does not fit the proxy data. Instead of looking in more detail at why they have assumed that it is caused by changes in the North Atlantic drift. This is partially alluded to in the write-up as it says that the ice in Iceland is not consistent with the ice pack elsewhere.

 

They suggest ice flows as being the reason. It then goes on in their summaries to say that it would appear that the NAO, appears to cause more affect on the ice pack (except the CO2 signal) than anything else. However they claim that on review they could not find any direct effect. But they have ignored the Iceland data in the proxies (and probably in the temperature as well). They also say that other feedbacks should not be ignored!.,

 

I happen to believe that the Atlantic does have more effect than the Pacific on ice extent as well by the way..

 

2) 90% of the sea bed proxies (which it considers are crucial) were taken at the edge of the ice sheets as they are today. They say it is crucial!!

But their results have shown that for the whole period this would have been under the total ice pack - not on the edge. So are these results showing what they claim?

 

3) Whenever I see tree ring proxies being used,  I have grave doubts. They are now claiming that tree ring proxies have been used in order to establish the temperature (and by the way that they are an indicator of sea ice extent and conditions!) and are therefore a very good indicator of the ice extent.

 

I am afraid that is a huge leap of faith. It could have been that much of the area was in ice for most of the time,  (particularly if the point about winter ice extent is used). Most of Siberia and Canada (where many of the tree proxies were taken) would have been under continual ice if the results of their research were correct.  How valid might this make the tree ring data?

 

4) They have not applied the reasonable test which should always be applied to any scientific work.

 

As I alluded to in my initial post on this subject - the inference for this work is that during the winter  period the ice would have been 'total'  to about 60 degrees north. There is no evidence for this in the report, except a denial from Iceland (which was ignored). I understand why, but  if the ice sheets did not engulf the whole of the North Atlantic, then many other areas would have had ice down to  say 55 degrees. Where is the evidence for this?

 

The graph presented does not show a single instance of very low ice extent until more recently. I think this is incorrect.

 

They quote a 5 year accuracy tolerance for the work. Yet they admit that for at least the first 1000 years the accuracy has been calculated to the 25 year interval.

 

In order to present a meaningful graph they have then had to smooth the data.

 

This by virtue of the fact that low values have been excluded will automatically produce a more or less straight line graph and will remove any indication of a 'bumpy and unstable' shape. Hence it will remove all indications of a lower ice levels.

 

I do think this is an interesting paper and will keep it for reference. I just wish they had looked in more detail at the 'reasonableness' and looked in detail at the exceptions.

 

However enough of this for now, as  time is short.... as always Mother Nature will ignore any model and is even more likely to ignore any smoothed data!!.

 

MIA

Edited September 20, 2015 by Midlands Ice Age

[knocker]

 

Now I have admitted that the report does  show some  periods of less ice in the 1450 years. and I happy to agree it is the best attempt they could make to produce something that the warmist brigade could support..

 

 

That comment just goes to prove my point. It has nothing to do with the warmist brigade. the boys brigade, the salvation army or any of the rest of the boys in the band. It's all to do with paleoclimatology and the fascinating subject of constructing past climates.It sums up in one sentence the attitude you adopt when posting to this thread.

 

That's my final word on the subject before Paul comes a knocking.

[Interitus]

I see that Stew, has responded to this.

 

It is really scraping the barrel, in order to find a denier who forecast recovery.

 

Stew clearly was having a joke in his whistling icon and in the other he stated that conditions at that time  'could'  lead to a recovery.

This is not calling it a recovery. So the 'evidence' is still not forthcoming. As I suggested you and others  are creating a strawman arguments in order to draw attention away from the fact that it was not a disastrous season. It could have been much worse as the warmers postings seem to suggest and that is all we are claiming.

It wasn't about finding a denier who forecast recovery. Your original quote -

 

Interitus..

 

I am not aware of anyone on here who called it a RECOVERY (apart from one or two people on the warmists side, who have termed it that ) .

 

MIA

As shown readily it was referred to as a recovery - as in the previous year/s implied by "could this be another good year for recovery?".

If there is a strawman argument it is on your part.

 

So claims by warmists that the situation is bordering catastrophic - let them look at what happened in 2013!.

Why? What happened in 2013?

It might be a surprise to know that 2013 lost proportionately more volume than this year (76.9% vs 76.8%).

Edited September 21, 2015 by Interitus

[Midlands Ice Age]

Why? What happened in 2013?

It might be a surprise to know that 2013 lost proportionately more volume than this year (76.9% vs 76.8%).

 

Interitus....

 

Surely we are not down to arguing about 0.1 of a percent now are we?

 

 

Re  - a more detailed  and scientific reply to question explaining my question mark  -

 

I thought that extent rose by about 60% though in 2013. So it wasn't surprising the volume dropped - as it was all mainly first year ice!!!!

 

That is what I was referring to after people had called 2012 melt season as signalling  the end of the Arctic ice, it suddenly rose by 60%!!. Note - I am not claiming it will happen again.!!!! My only claim is  that this year is not as terrible as is being made out..

 

 

 

Anyway we will not agree on whether the denialists called for a  recovery in 2014- 2015 season. You obviously believe they did, but to me the word 'could' obviously has a different meaning than for yourself!!

 

'Could' to me means  'it is possible that' and not 'it almost certainly will', which would constitute a claim.

 

After all everyone surely no one takes GW's posts as actual predictions do they? They are all full of  'if's, 'maybe's' and could's'. Perhaps you are getting 'could's and 'would's' mixed up?

 

Anyway here are the latest (just produced) volume and thickness maps for the end of August , as the last time I checked they were not fully issued -

 

Long break whilst checking  ---        XXXXXXXX

 

Here we go -  Neven has only done a summary overview describing a further slight drop in volume, but still references one to the August charts for further info.  (Perhaps he is still preparing a final summary for the season?). 

 

http://neven1.typepad.com/.a/6a0133f03a1e37970b01bb085def86970d-pi

 

http://neven1.typepad.com/.a/6a0133f03a1e37970b01b7c7b9eeec970b-pi

 

Here is the only chart so far for for the volume anomalies for end of August -  It is likely to be the current state with a further small reduction and now increases. Produced from WIPNEUS.

.

http://neven1.typepad.com/.a/6a0133f03a1e37970b01bb086e5178970d-pi

 

 

Here are the volume anomalies for the last 35 years, and up to date -

 

http://neven1.typepad.com/.a/6a0133f03a1e37970b01b8d153ede6970c-pi

 

It clearly shows a slight uptick at the end of August and I suspect that is continuing now that the minimum has been reached.

 

My take is that the the volume and thickness have increased for the last 3 - 4 years and it looks highly likely that the maximum (in thickness terms and volume terms) will rise again this year. Mainly because the minimum is only just below the downward trend line of the last 35 years.

 

Whilst I don't deny the volume of ice has dropped steadily, one has to go back to the 1982 period to find a  similar period  and even then the change was not as pronounced, These are the reasons I claim that it was not disastrous season and that  this next winter's growth could be interesting, to say the least, espescialy since it would appear that the NAD has reduced its  strength now (as many are predicting on "the colder Atlantic' thread)  for some time.

 

NOTE - this does not constitute as an official claim of Recovery. Merely an interesting phase.

 

So lets see what the weather brings to the Arctic this winter season - It will decide where we go from here and not the models.

 

MIA

Edited September 21, 2015 by Midlands Ice Age

[Midlands Ice Age]

That comment just goes to prove my point. It has nothing to do with the warmist brigade. the boys brigade, the salvation army or any of the rest of the boys in the band. It's all to do with paleoclimatology and the fascinating subject of constructing past climates.It sums up in one sentence the attitude you adopt when posting to this thread.

 

That's my final word on the subject before Paul comes a knocking.

 

Agreed Knocker! We don't want Paul onto us!!

 

Can I just say that I am by nature sceptical having worked in science, data  and research for many years. I was once a proof reader for science research papers so my first reaction is to query everything... I am surprised that it is not done more widely today...   . The 'reasonable' test  and 'standing back' is always a good thing to do!!

 

Do you really think my approach is anti-science?

 

 

I still think its a very good paper and if they were to now spent time looking at the 'unknowns' they reported could be a  very good spring board for further paleo work.

 

All from me now as well!

 

 

MIA

:D

Edited September 21, 2015 by Midlands Ice Age

[Interitus]

Why? What happened in 2013?

It might be a surprise to know that 2013 lost proportionately more volume than this year (76.9% vs 76.8%).

 

Interitus....

 

Surely we are not down to arguing about 0.1 of a percent now are we?

 

Re  - a more detailed  and scientific reply to question explaining my question mark  -

 

I thought that extent rose by about 60% though in 2013. So it wasn't surprising the volume dropped - as it was all mainly first year ice!!!!

 

That is what I was referring to after people had called 2012 melt season as signalling  the end of the Arctic ice, it suddenly rose by 60%!!. Note - I am not claiming it will happen again.!!!! My only claim is  that this year is not as terrible as is being made out..

Your scientific reading background fails you, why would a dramatic increase in first year ice after 2012 mean proportionately less ice volume after the melt season in 2013 than this year?

The 0.1% proportional difference is not actually that important, 2015 was more damaging to the ice than 2013, with the 3rd highest volume loss from maximum behind 2012 and 2010. The PIOMAS data though shows an interesting trend whereby the lower the initial maximum volume, the greater the proportion that is lost -

 

 

The polynomial curve has a slightly better fit (R-squared value) and from this 2015 is about 1 million km^3 below what might be expected, 2013 starting from a lower initial volume ended slightly above expectation by 232,000 km^3.

These figures compare with 2012 which was about 1.53 million below trend and 2014 about 1.96 million above - this was the year of good ice retention.

2013 was below the linear trend however and further investigation suggests that 2013 was a very average year for melt on recent trends. Looking at the average proportion of extent from the annual maximum of the years 2003-2015 excluding 2013 shows that the 2013 extent varied at most 8.6% below and 2.0% above the average throughout the whole year to minimum, and the 2013 'predicted' minimum extent proportion was only 0.05% different - equating to a forecast extent of 4838679 just 0.6% above the actual IJIS minimum extent of 4809288 -

 

 

 

Anyway we will not agree on whether the denialists called for a  recovery in 2014- 2015 season. You obviously believe they did, but to me the word 'could' obviously has a different meaning than for yourself!!

 

'Could' to me means  'it is possible that' and not 'it almost certainly will', which would constitute a claim.

 

After all everyone surely no one takes GW's posts as actual predictions do they? They are all full of  'if's, 'maybe's' and could's'. Perhaps you are getting 'could's and 'would's' mixed up?

 

Here are the volume anomalies for the last 35 years, and up to date -

 

http://neven1.typepad.com/.a/6a0133f03a1e37970b01b8d153ede6970c-pi

 

It clearly shows a slight uptick at the end of August and I suspect that is continuing now that the minimum has been reached.

 

My take is that the the volume and thickness have increased for the last 3 - 4 years and it looks highly likely that the maximum (in thickness terms and volume terms) will rise again this year. Mainly because the minimum is only just below the downward trend line of the last 35 years.

 

Whilst I don't deny the volume of ice has dropped steadily, one has to go back to the 1982 period to find a  similar period  and even then the change was not as pronounced, These are the reasons I claim that it was not disastrous season and that  this next winter's growth could be interesting, to say the least, espescialy since it would appear that the NAD has reduced its  strength now (as many are predicting on "the colder Atlantic' thread)  for some time.

 

NOTE - this does not constitute as an official claim of Recovery. Merely an interesting phase.

 

So lets see what the weather brings to the Arctic this winter season - It will decide where we go from here and not the models.

 

MIA

I have dealt with the use of the term 'recovery' as it pertained to your original assertion that it was not used, and now you tell me what I believe, bring in semantics and the posts of other members; your strawman approach is becoming tiresome and threatens to derail this thread. But the copy of the PIOMAS anomaly graph is useful as it further evidence that 2013 was an average year. The current 'uptick' brings 2015 to the average. In a system which is not strictly linear there will be times when the values are below trend such as the couple of years to 2012, and above trend like 2014. As stated elsewhere and shown again in this graph, we are below 2014. As asked previously and sadly labouring the point, how does this 'recovery', 'interesting phase' or however it is termed fit into the period for which we have data (ignore paleoclimatology) other than a return to the trend?

[Midlands Ice Age]

 

 

 The current 'uptick' brings 2015 to the average. In a system which is not strictly linear there will be times when the values are below trend such as the couple of years to 2012, and above trend like 2014. As stated elsewhere and shown again in this graph, we are below 2014. As asked previously and sadly labouring the point, how does this 'recovery', 'interesting phase' or however it is termed fit into the period for which we have data (ignore paleoclimatology) other than a return to the trend?

 

 

Interitus              (it seems to have lost the heading data, when I recalled the saved dataset after a data loss).

 

To answer your question

 

I am looking at the graph produced by Wipneus for the ice volume anomaly for the last 35 years produced below

 

I am not certain from your comments what you are claiming from this graph...

 

Are you saying the the current trend (for 2015) as depicted by this graph -

 

http://neven1.typepad.com/.a/6a0133f03a1e37970b01b8d153ede6970c-pi

 

are below those of 2014?

 

I suppose if you look at the maximum for 2014 then the 2015 are below 2014, but comparing on a month for month (min to min) basis then I think you will find I am correct.     The last 3 years have seen the maximum trend  go up each year,    and with this year (still an assumption - but looking valid) it will make 4 years in a row for the minimum to show an increase!.

             

The trend anomaly for 2015 has increased again compared to 2014 and is now on the trend line for the last 35 years,( and at its minimum) is undeniable is it not?

 

My point is what happens when the ice starts to thicken  - I believe it will go more above the trend line than it did in 2014 (an assumption) in which case it will have moved above the trend line for the last 35 years after dropping well below in 2010 and 2012.         Do you not agree?  

     

That will make 4 years in a row of an increasing trend in the volume of ice. It will (if it continues on this trend), cut through the declining trend line of the last 35 years. This is called a point of inflexion (on a downward trend), it has also been called a double cross and is important in terms of a change of momentum it shows. If the trend line continues to pull away from the 35 year trendline  (in future years), I for one will be buying  the shares of the oil companies and not windfarms!. This would indicate that something has changed the momentum and then I will call it a 'RECOVERY'.   . Have no fear!

 

I keep repeating this, but no arguing on here will change what nature has decided will happen. I do not know, but you are certain it will not happen  so  lets just see what happens.

 

 

MIA

 

:D

Edited September 21, 2015 by Midlands Ice Age

[Methuselah]

 

 

 

 The current 'uptick' brings 2015 to the average.

 

 

 

MIA

 

:D

 

Come on, MIA? What 'average' is that: (2013+2014+2015)/3? That's hardly representative, of the last 50-years, now is it?

[Midlands Ice Age]

Come on, MIA? What 'average' is that: (2013+2014+2015)/3? That's hardly representative, of the last 50-years, now is it?

 

Ed,

 

see my detailed post above to Interitus . I don't claim its back to average, just that the trend has returned to about/above the  average trend. The thickness HAS gone back to about average however!! Don't get me on that!

 

My reported graph is a trend graph - not an actual graph. It is therefore attempting to identify a change in the rate of growth of the volume.  

 

By the way, the average bit quoted by yourself was posted by Interitus, not by myself. However.....

 

As explained above ( I hoped),  I lost the data and on calling up the saved dataset, it had lost the 'INERITUS said' bit at the top and the highlighting bit.

 

MIA

Edited September 21, 2015 by Midlands Ice Age

[Methuselah]

Ed,

 

see my detailed post above to Int. I don't claim its back to average, just that the trend has returned to about/above the  average trend. The thickness HAS gone back to about average however!! Don't get me on that!

 

 

MIA

Moi? Would I do such a thing?

[knocker]

NSIDC

 

2015 melt season in review

 

http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/2015/10/2015-melt-season-in-review/

Edited October 7, 2015 by knocker

[Midlands Ice Age]

NSIDC

 

2015 melt season in review

 

http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/2015/10/2015-melt-season-in-review/

 

NSIDC

 

2015 melt season in review

 

http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/2015/10/2015-melt-season-in-review/

 

Thanks Knocker a very interesting read.

 

Something for everyone in this!

 

To me, the outstanding feature was the very low ice extent at the maximum at the end of last winter (and one of the earliest dates recorded for it).

 

I still believe the season was not disastrous as was being made out by many on here (even for extent) , since it ended up as the 4th lowest recorded (and one of the earliest minimum dates ever recorded).

 

So low ice formation and early max  last winter and early start to refreeze, is that something we need to look out for this coming year?

 

It mentions that a lot of the multiyear thick ice was transported out to the higher melt areas this year (ie towards the east), but fails to mention that not as much went into the Fram. as per the last few years.

 

Awaiting PIOMAS and WIPNEUS and the final ice volumes.

[knocker]

Thanks Knocker a very interesting read.

 

Something for everyone in this!

 

To me, the outstanding feature was the very low ice extent at the maximum at the end of last winter (and one of the earliest dates recorded for it).

 

I still believe the season was not disastrous as was being made out by many on here (even for extent) , since it ended up as the 4th lowest recorded (and one of the earliest minimum dates ever recorded).

 

So low ice formation and early max  last winter and early start to refreeze, is that something we need to look out for this coming year?

 

It mentions that a lot of the multiyear thick ice was transported out to the higher melt areas this year (ie towards the east), but fails to mention that not as much went into the Fram. as per the last few years.

 

Awaiting PIOMAS and WIPNEUS and the final ice volumes.

 

What a very odd comment.

 

Regarding volume what exactly are we going to learn that we don't already know?

 

 

The sea ice extent minimum for 2015 was likely reached on Sept 11. Sea ice volume minimum was reached a day later with a total volume of 5670 km³ . This  value is about 1200 km³ below the volume minimum of the 2014 which showed a subtantial rebound in ice volume. The value for 2015 is 300 km³ above the value for 2013 and constitutes a continuation of the long-term declining trend (see fig 1) with shorter term  variability in both directions (e.g. 2012 and 2014).

 

http://psc.apl.uw.edu/research/projects/arctic-sea-ice-volume-anomaly/

Edited October 7, 2015 by knocker

[Midlands Ice Age]

What a very odd comment.

 

Regarding volume what exactly are we going to learn that we don't already know?

 

 

http://psc.apl.uw.edu/research/projects/arctic-sea-ice-volume-anomaly/

 

Something very odd going on here Knocker for sure....

 

I have reproduced the graph dated 30/9/2105 which shows that the min for volume in 2015 is higher than 2014 is higher than 2013 is higher than 2012 is not higher than 2011. NO doubting the trend!!!!!!!!!!. This is from the same article that you have quoted.

 

http://psc.apl.uw.edu/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/schweiger/ice_volume/SPIOMASIceVolumeAnomalyCurrentV2.1.png

 

It MAY be something to do with a reported 11% uplift in the data, which has suddenly been announced by PIOMASS.

 

It has been announced by PIOMASS that in June that they reduced the rate of reduction in the long term from 3.6 Kcubed /decade  to 2.8Km/decade.

 

They have re-calculated their own data and produced their Version 2.1 dataset (from 2.0) and this has confused the figures for this year.

 

I didn't mention anything about it being very convenient!

 

Anyway the graph above still shows that my contention is true and was correct before and after the change of data. There is nothing odd about it..

 

I still find it difficult to believe they would put out a graph on 30/9 without using the latest data release, (since June they claim) unless they were in a very great hurry to get the adjusted data out for some reason!

 

Also please note the previous version 2.0 would have shown this years minimum to be ABOVE the trend line for the last 30 odd years. Now that wouldn't do would it with a certain event in France coming up!  Still no mention of convenience!!

 

 

 

 

 

Edited October 7, 2015 by Midlands Ice Age

[stewfox]

We are starting to some healthy gains now above the long term average for the time of year (cira 90k) ,although making comparison to previous years particularly 1980's and 1990's is not really relevant given the refreeze in those years generally started at lower latitudes. Much of the open water now re freezing was of course already ice back then.

 

148,000 gain yesterday which follows 136,000 gain from the day before

 

https://ads.nipr.ac.jp/vishop/vishop-extent.html?N 

Edited October 7, 2015 by stewfox

[BornFromTheVoid]

Something very odd going on here Knocker for sure....

 

I have reproduced the graph dated 30/9/2105 which shows that the min for volume in 2015 is higher than 2014 is higher than 2013 is higher than 2012 is not higher than 2011. NO doubting the trend!!!!!!!!!!. This is from the same article that you have quoted.

 

http://psc.apl.uw.edu/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/schweiger/ice_volume/SPIOMASIceVolumeAnomalyCurrentV2.1.png

 

 

 

 

Those are anomalies, MIA, they don't show whether the minimum this year was in comparison to the last few. For that, you need the actual values, such as that produced by Wipneus.

 

 

The trend is quite clear, no doubting that.

Edited October 7, 2015 by BornFromTheVoid

[Midlands Ice Age]

We are starting to some healthy gains now above the long term average for the time of year (cira 90k) ,although making comparison to previous years particularly 1980's and 1990's is not really relevant given the refreeze in those years generally started at lower latitudes. Much of the open water now re freezing was of course already ice back then.

 

148,000 gain yesterday which follows 136,000 gain from the day before

 

 

https://ads.nipr.ac.jp/vishop/vishop-extent.html?N 

Stew - needs to go in the refreeze thread.

Edited October 7, 2015 by Midlands Ice Age

[Midlands Ice Age]

Those are anomalies, MIA, they don't show whether the minimum this year was in comparison to the last few. For that, you need the actual values, such as that produced by Wipneus.

 

 

The trend is quite clear, no doubting that.

 

BFTV..

 

Yep I had forgotten that they were anomalies. But the anomalies are much more responsive than the straight numbers and will clearly show that a consolidation in the volume is currently occuring.       Will it continue? Who really knows.

 

You can clearly see that the last 3 years have been above trend-line even on your charts, with the new ice volume calculations.

(remember they have reduced the ongoing downward trend rate going from Version 2.0 to version 2.1).

 

Is it another false dawn, or is it the start of the change in natural cycles. ......?

 

So lets see what happens this year.

Edited October 7, 2015 by Midlands Ice Age

[Interitus]

Well it's interesting and perhaps concerning that the PIOMAS trends are consistent. A polynomial fit for just the first twenty years 1979-98 without the recent extreme melts of the past decade quite accurately predicts where we are now -