http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-0MiyOPX48CM/Ub56iv7FiKI/AAAAAAAAKAo/ZhWln7kWYrY/s1600/sio_june_fig1_final.png
You gotta love the "dance of the alarmist". Here are some of the moves:
- It's not extent that matters, it's volume or thickness or dirtiness or...etc.
- Storms and cyclones are unpredictable.
- Extent is a "fuzzy" measure.
- The predictions were accurate some other year.
- A climate prediction which doesn't come true is called "weather".
- These are aren't actual forecasts, they are "experimental forecasts".
- The error bars are "+-0.66 MILLION square km". That means there's a large range to be right. And if they're wrong, it's just an anomalous year, a statistical hiccup.
I saved the best for last...oh the irony. Four brave lads attempted the row the Northwest passage in the Arctic to bring attention to climate change. However, they had to cut their trip short due to...yup you guessed it...the passage was blocked by ice. http://mainstreamlastfirst.com/and-the-t...
Actually, I have one more. Since the ice extent this year is quite large and nowhere near any sort of record and frankly not even worth discussing what's an alarmist to do? Well if you're the NOAA or an alarmist journalist, you talk about last year's record again and you make it "seem" like the record is actually this year: http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/08/06/no...
_______________________________________...
Edit: "Especially the UK met office, their model must have some serious defects."
Here is what I learned at alarmist school. Climate models don't have serious defects; any inaccurate predictions are solely due to year to year natural variability and are well within documented error margins.
_______________________________________...
Edit2: Here's what else I learned at alarmist school. Let's not discuss the Antarctic ALL TIME record sea ice. Expert Mark Serreze says it's winds and the ozone hole so we can stop discussing this immediately and we can focus on the Arctic where there is no wind or ozone.
_______________________________________...
Edit3@Jeff M: "rather than actually looking at the data and dealing with it on a scientific level."
I realize you always look at data on a scientific level. How you do that is what the list above in my answer addresses. I'm going to call it "The Jeff M Data Dance". Has a nice ring to it doesn't it?
Let`s give it a try: Jeff M five years ago: Um, the overall global temperature has risen uncontrollably over the past century and man`s CO2 has been responsible for most of it in the past 50 years. Jeff M five days ago: Um, the overall global temperature doesn`t matter because the heat is going into the deep oceans and man`s CO2 has been responsible for most of it in the past 5 years.
Oooh, nice moves Jeff.
_______________________________________...
Edit4:Jeff M: Sorry Jeff, you do realize I`m just messing with you, right?
One of the things to keep in mind is that "extent" is a somewhat... fuzzy measure. We could have the same mass of ice, even the exact same chunks of ice floating around, and have very different extent measurements based on how the chunks are bunched up. If they're all clustered, they'll show as a fairly small extent. If they're spread out, but not so much that there's not enough in any one "pixel" to show up as having ice, then the extent will seem large. If they're too far spread out, the ice extent will get small again.
And this is not even bringing in the thickness issue. Or the "weather is not climate" issue. Or the "the Arctic is not the entire planet" issue. Or the "a prediction isn't wrong until the time predicted actually happens" issue...
Sea ice extent minimum is strongly affected by the weather, which is a chaotic problem, leading to large error bars in the prediction, but in the SEARCH graph they don't put on those error bars.
The statistician-blogger Tamino gives error bars of +-0.66 MILLION square km as the confidence level of his forecast a couple of years ago:
http://tamino.wordpress.com/2011/07/20/i...
The ice is now much, much thinner than historically, so it's even more vulnerable to changing weather than before. The fact we had a series of cyclones over the Arctic this year kept the skies cloudy and the temperatures cooler so the ice hasn't retreated as much as in past years. It seems pretty likely that another year we'll get different weather and the ice will shrink back further.
Arctic ice is still below average. currently sea ice extent is roughly equal to what it was in 2009.
http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/files/...
It continues to be extremely low and the trend is still one of decline.
http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/files/...
I suspect that we are going to see a number of years with a higher extent than the extreme low of 2012.
http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/
"The distribution of the temperature anomalies can be related to the sea level pressure pattern."
Regarding OMs post: Here is what I learned at denier school.
If something has a cause it is better to speak about the effect and come to a predefined conclusion about the cause rather than actually looking at the data and dealing with it on a scientific level. Instead let's just say "Wow the Arctic is shrinking while the antarctic is growing. this must mean there is no global warming! Checkmate Athies.. erm... I mean alarmists!"
http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/checkmate-...
Something else I learned at denier school: Change the opponents argument, ie. all climate models are 100% correct, and try to argue against that instead of what is actually stated.
OM: I am aware of this :) Believe it or not some people labelled 'alarmists' have a rather good sense of humour. Regardless of your response I was going to post this as I am getting into the whole 'meme' thing apparently.
http://i78.photobucket.com/albums/j89/cl...
PS: you did not know me 5 years ago and I wasn't even interested in AGW back then. Actually I was more interested in debating evolution at that time.
The losses were due to the AMO and warm water distribution in the Arctic region and not Global air temperatures. The ocean has 1000 times more heat capacity than the atmosphere. Warm water rivers from Russia greatly affected the Arctic. : http://neven1.typepad.com/blog/2011/04/a...
The PDO originally had an effect on the Arctic melting but it has now "flipped" and is in a cooling trend. The AMO didn't start its warming trend until the mid-1990s and is due to "flip" back to a cooling trend soon.
Atmospheric influences on sea ice is negligible.
What is surprising? These were pretty good predictions. The loss in 2012 was extreme due to cyclones, activity that could not have been predicted. Look at where we are in 2013 and compare to the predicted trends and these are very good. Models are not designed to make specific predictions in specific years. Oddly though, you picking on the Met Office is whacko when showing 2012; they were nearly dead-on.
It's O.K. I understand your reluctance to post the actual source of your little graph
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/08/11/se...
Of course take out Watts attempt to color the info, by say looking at one of the actual sources listed
like U.K. Met
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/cli...
I draw your attention to this quote
"Given current capabilities for seasonal forecasting of sea ice, we consider our contribution to the SEARCH outlook as an experimental forecast."
As it says forecasts are affected by prevailing conditions beyond AGW, but what has actually happened over 30+ years is collected data and that shows the continual decline
http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/files/...
Including the last 15 years when deniers try to claim AGW has stopped, that's not reflected in the data at all.
Whatever game Watts thinks he's playing he fools nobody, but those who want to be fooled.
Deniers here have posted this image recently to try and make it look like ice is recovering
http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/image...
It compares this years to 2012, but strange these so called skeptics fail to mention 2012 was the new record low year for sea ice extent.
Why you may wonder do they not post this image
http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/files/...
Which show the last 6 years, giving a far better idea of whats going on, the answer is simple, then the tale of a recovery falls flat and 2013 is seen as similar to the last 5 years before 2012, all of which where well below the long term average, deniers are never keen on facts interfering with their little fairy tale's.
You find that to be interesting? I find the summary for that chart to be interesting.
http://www.arcus.org/search/seaiceoutloo...
As the summary states, sea ice volume is the better measure for the health of the sea ice and the reason as to why it is. ....... So how is the sea ice volume doing this year? - https://sites.google.com/site/pettitclim...
We can look at sea ice extent, sea ice area and sea ice thickness. Sea ice volume is determined by the use of all of these and it becomes the best indicator of sea ice health. ..... Is this why you only wanted to focus on extent?
So did the June sea ice extent predictions miss the mark for 2013? Yes. It's called "weather". What does the last 20 - 30 years of data show? Also known as "climate".
BTW - where was your chart for the 2012 sea ice extent June outlook during 2012?
What's really interesting is that they ALL have it less than long term average.
a real skeptic would check all the data. Have a look at the thickness and mass. Spreading ice over a larger surface will it's thinning means a lot is melting.
It is interesting to see how many got this wrong
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-0MiyOPX48CM/Ub56iv7FiKI/AAAAAAAAKAo/ZhWln7kWYrY/s1600/sio_june_fig1_final.png
You gotta love the "dance of the alarmist". Here are some of the moves:
- It's not extent that matters, it's volume or thickness or dirtiness or...etc.
- Storms and cyclones are unpredictable.
- Extent is a "fuzzy" measure.
- The predictions were accurate some other year.
- A climate prediction which doesn't come true is called "weather".
- These are aren't actual forecasts, they are "experimental forecasts".
- The error bars are "+-0.66 MILLION square km". That means there's a large range to be right. And if they're wrong, it's just an anomalous year, a statistical hiccup.
I saved the best for last...oh the irony. Four brave lads attempted the row the Northwest passage in the Arctic to bring attention to climate change. However, they had to cut their trip short due to...yup you guessed it...the passage was blocked by ice. http://mainstreamlastfirst.com/and-the-t...
Actually, I have one more. Since the ice extent this year is quite large and nowhere near any sort of record and frankly not even worth discussing what's an alarmist to do? Well if you're the NOAA or an alarmist journalist, you talk about last year's record again and you make it "seem" like the record is actually this year: http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/08/06/no...
_______________________________________...
Edit: "Especially the UK met office, their model must have some serious defects."
Here is what I learned at alarmist school. Climate models don't have serious defects; any inaccurate predictions are solely due to year to year natural variability and are well within documented error margins.
_______________________________________...
Edit2: Here's what else I learned at alarmist school. Let's not discuss the Antarctic ALL TIME record sea ice. Expert Mark Serreze says it's winds and the ozone hole so we can stop discussing this immediately and we can focus on the Arctic where there is no wind or ozone.
_______________________________________...
Edit3@Jeff M: "rather than actually looking at the data and dealing with it on a scientific level."
I realize you always look at data on a scientific level. How you do that is what the list above in my answer addresses. I'm going to call it "The Jeff M Data Dance". Has a nice ring to it doesn't it?
Let`s give it a try: Jeff M five years ago: Um, the overall global temperature has risen uncontrollably over the past century and man`s CO2 has been responsible for most of it in the past 50 years. Jeff M five days ago: Um, the overall global temperature doesn`t matter because the heat is going into the deep oceans and man`s CO2 has been responsible for most of it in the past 5 years.
Oooh, nice moves Jeff.
_______________________________________...
Edit4:Jeff M: Sorry Jeff, you do realize I`m just messing with you, right?
One of the things to keep in mind is that "extent" is a somewhat... fuzzy measure. We could have the same mass of ice, even the exact same chunks of ice floating around, and have very different extent measurements based on how the chunks are bunched up. If they're all clustered, they'll show as a fairly small extent. If they're spread out, but not so much that there's not enough in any one "pixel" to show up as having ice, then the extent will seem large. If they're too far spread out, the ice extent will get small again.
And this is not even bringing in the thickness issue. Or the "weather is not climate" issue. Or the "the Arctic is not the entire planet" issue. Or the "a prediction isn't wrong until the time predicted actually happens" issue...
Sea ice extent minimum is strongly affected by the weather, which is a chaotic problem, leading to large error bars in the prediction, but in the SEARCH graph they don't put on those error bars.
The statistician-blogger Tamino gives error bars of +-0.66 MILLION square km as the confidence level of his forecast a couple of years ago:
http://tamino.wordpress.com/2011/07/20/i...
The ice is now much, much thinner than historically, so it's even more vulnerable to changing weather than before. The fact we had a series of cyclones over the Arctic this year kept the skies cloudy and the temperatures cooler so the ice hasn't retreated as much as in past years. It seems pretty likely that another year we'll get different weather and the ice will shrink back further.
Arctic ice is still below average. currently sea ice extent is roughly equal to what it was in 2009.
http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/files/...
It continues to be extremely low and the trend is still one of decline.
http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/files/...
I suspect that we are going to see a number of years with a higher extent than the extreme low of 2012.
http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/
"The distribution of the temperature anomalies can be related to the sea level pressure pattern."
Regarding OMs post: Here is what I learned at denier school.
If something has a cause it is better to speak about the effect and come to a predefined conclusion about the cause rather than actually looking at the data and dealing with it on a scientific level. Instead let's just say "Wow the Arctic is shrinking while the antarctic is growing. this must mean there is no global warming! Checkmate Athies.. erm... I mean alarmists!"
http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/checkmate-...
Something else I learned at denier school: Change the opponents argument, ie. all climate models are 100% correct, and try to argue against that instead of what is actually stated.
OM: I am aware of this :) Believe it or not some people labelled 'alarmists' have a rather good sense of humour. Regardless of your response I was going to post this as I am getting into the whole 'meme' thing apparently.
http://i78.photobucket.com/albums/j89/cl...
PS: you did not know me 5 years ago and I wasn't even interested in AGW back then. Actually I was more interested in debating evolution at that time.
The losses were due to the AMO and warm water distribution in the Arctic region and not Global air temperatures. The ocean has 1000 times more heat capacity than the atmosphere. Warm water rivers from Russia greatly affected the Arctic. : http://neven1.typepad.com/blog/2011/04/a...
The PDO originally had an effect on the Arctic melting but it has now "flipped" and is in a cooling trend. The AMO didn't start its warming trend until the mid-1990s and is due to "flip" back to a cooling trend soon.
Atmospheric influences on sea ice is negligible.
What is surprising? These were pretty good predictions. The loss in 2012 was extreme due to cyclones, activity that could not have been predicted. Look at where we are in 2013 and compare to the predicted trends and these are very good. Models are not designed to make specific predictions in specific years. Oddly though, you picking on the Met Office is whacko when showing 2012; they were nearly dead-on.
It's O.K. I understand your reluctance to post the actual source of your little graph
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/08/11/se...
Of course take out Watts attempt to color the info, by say looking at one of the actual sources listed
like U.K. Met
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/cli...
I draw your attention to this quote
"Given current capabilities for seasonal forecasting of sea ice, we consider our contribution to the SEARCH outlook as an experimental forecast."
As it says forecasts are affected by prevailing conditions beyond AGW, but what has actually happened over 30+ years is collected data and that shows the continual decline
http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/files/...
Including the last 15 years when deniers try to claim AGW has stopped, that's not reflected in the data at all.
Whatever game Watts thinks he's playing he fools nobody, but those who want to be fooled.
Deniers here have posted this image recently to try and make it look like ice is recovering
http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/image...
It compares this years to 2012, but strange these so called skeptics fail to mention 2012 was the new record low year for sea ice extent.
Why you may wonder do they not post this image
http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/files/...
Which show the last 6 years, giving a far better idea of whats going on, the answer is simple, then the tale of a recovery falls flat and 2013 is seen as similar to the last 5 years before 2012, all of which where well below the long term average, deniers are never keen on facts interfering with their little fairy tale's.
You find that to be interesting? I find the summary for that chart to be interesting.
http://www.arcus.org/search/seaiceoutloo...
As the summary states, sea ice volume is the better measure for the health of the sea ice and the reason as to why it is. ....... So how is the sea ice volume doing this year? - https://sites.google.com/site/pettitclim...
We can look at sea ice extent, sea ice area and sea ice thickness. Sea ice volume is determined by the use of all of these and it becomes the best indicator of sea ice health. ..... Is this why you only wanted to focus on extent?
So did the June sea ice extent predictions miss the mark for 2013? Yes. It's called "weather". What does the last 20 - 30 years of data show? Also known as "climate".
BTW - where was your chart for the 2012 sea ice extent June outlook during 2012?
What's really interesting is that they ALL have it less than long term average.
a real skeptic would check all the data. Have a look at the thickness and mass. Spreading ice over a larger surface will it's thinning means a lot is melting.
It is interesting to see how many got this wrong
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-0MiyOPX48CM/Ub56iv7FiKI/AAAAAAAAKAo/ZhWln7kWYrY/s1600/sio_june_fig1_final.png
