Jaxa posted the May 31, 2010 daily value for sea ice, and I was able to compute the average for the month. Because this is betting, not science, I record a ridiculous number of significant figures to enter into the script. Peiter is our winner on the May average sea ice bet; Phil is second.
Many will recall that the average NH ice extent for April 2010 was rather high. May took out a huge amount of ice. The average for may is influenced both by the early high values and the later low values. In the end, it is close to the value one might have guessed if they’d just applied a linear extrapolation to available ice extent values in the JAXA record for May. Here are the plots.
If you want to see how your bet compared to other peoples, all bets are indicated below. (I edited a few who entered values like 10,130,000 etc. I figured you really meant 10.13. I didn’t know if Hal really meant to bet 1 or 10, so I left that alone. )
[sockulator(../musings/wp-content/uploads/2009/09/UAHBets2.php?Display=1?Observed=11.99588219?Metric=NH Ice?Units=x 106 km2?cutOffMonth=5?cutOffDay=2?cutOffYear=2010?DateMetric=May, 2010? )sockulator]
For those who can’t get enough of betting, you can now bet on the average ice extent for June. There will be additional bets.
You are showing the June guesses, and the betting results as if May ice had been June ice. N’est-ce pas?
Yeah, I meant to bet 10.011, but for June average
The extrapolation of the green line looks like about 10.5 for June, but my calculation, using the formula yields 9.888. ??
Don’s right the June betting has been used for the May results.
Here’s the May betting:
Bets Placed Quatloos for NH Ice May, 2010 Predictions.
Name Prediction (x 106 km2) Bet
Jeroen 12.2 2
Arn Riewe 12.254 3
Banjoman0 12.478 5
P Gosselin 5.056 2
denis 12.999 5
Phil. 12.1 4
chris y 12.25 5
joel 12.64 2
Pieter 11.921 4
Pieter 11.921 4
Foz 12.51 5
MarcH 13.5 3
denny 12.35 3
Leonard Weinstein 12.5 5
intrepid_wanders 12.52 3
Lance 11.148 4
David Jay 12.2 5
David Jay 13.1 5
Dave Dardinger 5.95 3
stephan 12.8 3
Earle Williams 12.2 5
R 12.575 5
Ron Broberg 12.558 5
Zeke 12.3 2
Les Johnson 12.5 5
PKthinks 6.1 3
Dr Phillip Bratby 12.125 1
harrywr2 12.5 3
Don B 12.316 4
Jimmy Haigh 12.4 5
Rogelio 7.5 4
Jimmy Haigh 12.4 5
John Norris 12.55 1
Lance 1.115 4
Robert Leyland 12.711 4
Hal 13.666 2
Hal 1.367 2
Joel Heinrich 12.432 5
Robert 5.3 5
Les Johnson 5.74 5
DeWitt Payne 12.2 2
AMac 12.28 1
Tim Walkowski 5.87 5
Zeke 5.5 4
Pieter
(11.921) and I (12.1) bracket the actual value with the win going to him by a nose!
Wow I came in second on my first ever bet!
Only I thought I was betting for June.
The closest May bets were Pieter at 11.91 followed by Phil at 12.1.
The discrepancy in the equations is rounding error. The actual x coefficient is -0.031714 which gives an estimate for June of 10.463 Mm2.
Ok… this should be showing may now. Lots of server errors….
Hal–
Either re-enter your bet to replace the first bet or I’ll try to remember to fix it.
The linear monthly equations are nice. Since sea ice has been growing in April with the passing years, in only 6,000 years (rough calculation) the oceans will be completely covered in ice in April, before becoming ice-free that July. 🙂 OK, so we’re just betting about the next 30 days.
Klyashtorin and Lyubushin point out a 60 year cycle in Arctic sea ice, which lags global temperatures by about 8 years, in their “Cyclic Climate Change and Fish Productivity.” We need to be prepared for sine wave rather than linear thinking just in case Lucia has a betting contest with a really, really long timeframe!
http://alexeylyubushin.narod.ru/Climate_Changes_and_Fish_Productivity.pdf?
Re: Don B (Jun 1 16:57),
I’m sure I’m taking this too literally, but the thirty year trend for NOAA April extent is still negative at -0.045 Mm2/year. 2010 was not sufficiently far above the trend line to call the trend into question (the process was still in control). It seems beyond fortuitous that satellite imaging started just when Arctic ice was near the maximum of a 60 year cycle.
DeWitt (#44547)
The passing years quip was referencing the few years in Lucia’s graph. To extrapolate an 8 year trend for 6,000 years, a smiley face is required.
Now this comment just bothers me. Don B said: “To extrapolate an 8 year trend for 6,000 years, a smiley face is required.” But, but, b.. if it was in even another peer reviewed paper it would be just fine! 🙂
Lucia, I have a concern. I, for the past several months, have put on my tinfoil hat, and done the East to Midwest mind meld to transmit my submissions. They have been extraordinarily accurate, as each would have been the winner. Plus, my quatloo load would have been overwhelmingly high as my betting is superior. IF ONLY YOUR RECEPTION HAD BEEN BETTER.
Since I still do not appear on the June rolls, I will try again next month. So, if you need a new tinfoil hat receiving antenna, I would be pleased to send you one from my own personal roll.
Good luck to the rest of you, though. 🙂
(Sent in the true spirit of the event.)
Hmmm… more intarnet bettings from Lucia. Maybe she should change the blog name into BetLucia.com?
And wot’s this fetish with the Arctic sea ice extend I see all over climablogosphere? Obsession, rather than science if you ask me…
Hhmmm… I have to figure out what might be preventing entries.
Are you getting server errors? Or do the bets seem to appear to you, but don’t appear on the list?
Has this happened to anyone else?
Hoi Polloi
Ok… so Neven’s nose was going to be out of joint if I did not discuss the ice after the fast melt in May and yours is out of joint because climate bloggers are watching and discussing the ice.
Summer ice melts get newspaper coverage and is reported on daily by several science agencies who also write various monthly reports and support large sites discussing the current state of the ice. I’m astonished to discover that you are bothered that people would read what the science agencies write and newspapers report and then discuss it at blogs.
Do you visit water coolers and bars and suggest better topics of conversation for those people too?
I don’t see sod anywhere on this topic.
Carrot–
You’re right. That was Hoi Polloi. I’m reading in email. I probably had sod’s comment on the Alexa Romm thread and Hoi’s on this thread both opened. Fixed.
Lucia, server????!!!??? In direct mind-to-mind melding we don’t need no stinkin server(s). Unless it is of course for those alcohol-based liquid refreshments.
I’m really concerned now. Apparently, you did not even receive a tingle from my mind melding attempts. Maybe it’s my own tinfoil hat that’s to blame. 🙂
Anyway, hope you had a great weekend!
Ok… I thought you actually entered a bet and it vanished….
I now know to turn my mental telepathy abilities to “on”! 🙂
Ok… I thought you actually entered a bet and it vanished….
I now know to turn my mental telepathy abilities to “onâ€!
Whooooaaaaaa….. you can do that? Mine seem to be on some timetable, the control of which, I haven’t.
Lucia, don’t get your knickers in a twist. Arctic sea ice extent has been up and down for kazillions of years and nobody cared until Al Bore got involved. Now it seems every inch in increase or decrease is subject of front page news and frantic climablog discussions and bets. To me that’s an obsession, not science. And not even sure it was a melt or just driven out by Siberian winds (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/04/100427111449.htm).
.
It reminds me of a Ponzi scheme called Stock Market, where hype and sound bites are ruling.
Hi,
Why do you think my knickers are in a twist about the sea ice?
I’m just wondering if you run around interupting people having conversations at water coolers and lecturing them that what they are discussing is “not science”?
Of course betting isn’t science. Who claimed it was? I’m mystified about how “not being science” makes betting quatloos on the sea ice similar to a Ponzi scheme. Cake baking, betting on the Bears game, and jogging are also not science. Are those similar to Ponzi schemes?
You are amusing though. Carry on.
.
That’s right! I’m very grateful for these threads, except when they get derailed by discussions on what to call skeptics that are the opposite of skeptics (OK, I was to blame for that a bit as well, so I apologize).
.
Arctic SIE has been very interesting for a couple of years now, and this year more so because of the way things are shaping up for the summer melt. I keep saying it: if conditions get anywhere near those of 2007 (cloudless skies, winds blowing in the right direction for weeks on end), we’ll have a new minimum extent record. This could have implications for the climate (which in my alarmist mind, will be disastrous naturellement), but will surely have implications for the PR side of the debate where public opinion is swayed – if it cares to be woken up from its catatonic consumption patterns.
.
One other interesting thing is that WUWT (We Use Wishful Thinking) – you know, that blog for skeptics that are the opposite of skeptics – has been in turbo overdrive ever since Watts&Goddard in all their arroignorance proclaimed minimum SIE would show another recovery of half a million square km, ie 5.75 million square km, followed by the nosedive we witnessed this May. They are churning out articles about the Arctic sea ice almost on a daily basis, and June has only just begun! What will they come up with if the melt continues?
.
They are so frantic that they’re even turning down Steven Mosher’s well-meant spin advice. 😀
.
But anyway, back to the sea ice. 2006, 2007, 2008 and 2009 had some pretty heavy melts today and tomorrow (some century breaks were recorded), so let’s see if 2010 can maintain its lead. I think 2006 will go under it and stay there for a while.
.
Here’s another interesting analysis by Patrick Lockerby on scientificblogging. Lots of pretty pictures.
.
ps does anyone know who Steven Goddard really is?
May UAH has been announced:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2010/06/may-2010-uah-global-temperature-update/
Neven
Yes. Actual evidence that things are changing will have implications for the PR side of things. Youtube videos of polar bears falling from the skies can’t In contrast, if ice doesn’t melt, the PR effort will have to return to presenting us with dead or dying polar bears.
On another matter: it’s probably best if you limit your gripes about WUWT coverage. Maybe you can content yourself with the notion that the ice might actually melt this year?
As much as Hoi Polloi seems to dislike these betting posts, my POV is that summer is here and September is not far off. In 4 months, no amount of my trying to estimate the volume, errors in current measurements of the extent or concerning myself with the soundness of any particular person’s analysis is going make one iota of difference to whether or not we all believe the ice mostly melted or whether it managed to avoid melting.
If someone thinks they can predict the ice extent for the end of September, they can enter their bet. I’m posting enough bets that there will be a sizeable number of “results” posts announcing who won. It seems to me this is one of the more even handed ways to deal with various people’s notions about what will happen to the ice. I have no insight whatsoever about the likely min value!
The Canadian Ice Service (a branch of Environment Canada, a Federal Government Department) has released their report on this past winters ice conditions, and summer predictions.
http://ice-glaces.ec.gc.ca/prods/ARCTIC001/20100602000000_ARCTIC001_0005009206.pdf
In summary, ice thickness is 20-50 cm less than normal, winter tempertures anywhere from 2 to 16 degrees celsius above normal, ice that never consolidated, huge leads, conditions from 2 to 6 weeks ahead of normal for clearing. An interesting read.
Now the Canadian Ice Service is ultra conservative when it comes to predictions (part of this due diligence thing), so the ice will probably be thinner and melting sooner than they predict.
The only thing, is that since the new ice in the high arctic archipelago will be gone, that last bit of multiyear ice may filter down between the high arctic islands and block the northwest passage ( or the Canadian Northern Passage, as we are now supposed to call it, since it is soley in Canadian territorial waters).
CIS is redesigning their website Monday June 7, so if the link is broke, I will repost, if it changes.
Soth–
Out of curiosity, why would due diligence make the canadian’s tend to over or under-predict the ice melt? Shouldn’t it require them to try to make the most accurate possible forecasts, but communicate a reasonable range of uncertainty? I’m pretty sure that’s what the US weather service or NOAA try to do with weather, tornadoes, hurricanes etc.
They don’t try to predict worse (or better) weather “just in case”. If these agencies adopted the strategy of introducing an intentional bias, then consumers of their weather products would adjust their interpretation of the warning accordingly. If the hurricane forecast people over-predicted hurricanes, people would refuse to evacuate after experiencing years of hurricane warnings that never materialized etc. If the long range hurricane forecast people predicted too few hurricanes, insurance companies would just pad the official predictions when setting rates.
So, that strikes me as an unwise way to “be conservative”. Does the Canadian agency really do that?
Hi Lucia
Weather conditions can change drastically in the arctic, and ice free waters can quickly become infested with multiyear ice. It only takes one multi-year chunk of ice to damage a ship, or crush as sailboat. Shipping companies don’t sue the government for missing a shoal or not becoming trapped or not hitting ice. That is why the CIS is conservative on there predictions.
Now places like the St. Lawrence river, where they can be almost 100% certain of conditions, they are extremely accurate, its just that the arctic is still a very dangerous place to sail, often with no feet on the ground to verify or ground truth sat. imagery.
One good example, is that CIS was reporting multiyear ice in the northern beufort sea last September. It was really rotten first year ice, that was putting out the same signature at multiyear ice on the sat photos. Our ice breaker was cutting thru this stuff like butter at 11 knots.
Soth–
But what I’m asking is, do they intentionally over state the ice extent or thickness? I know they might often be off, and that sometimes they will overstate the ice extent or thickness. But is this a policy?
If it is, that seem odd to me.
No, they report the ice thickness as accurately as possible, and the extent appears to be accurate, but erring on the side of caution, if they cant get a good reading due to visibility.
Its the predictions for future clearing that are very conservative, but then again they at the mercy of the weather, which has been anything but normal the past few years.
Note, I don’t work for the ice service, its just been my observations, and people that I work with that spend time in the arctic.
Soth–
Thanks for the clarification.
lucia (Comment#44717) June 5th, 2010 at 7:17 am
Soth–
Out of curiosity, why would due diligence make the canadian’s tend to over or under-predict the ice melt? Shouldn’t it require them to try to make the most accurate possible forecasts, but communicate a reasonable range of uncertainty? I’m pretty sure that’s what the US weather service or NOAA try to do with weather, tornadoes, hurricanes etc.
The Canadian Ice Service maps are used for navigation so need to be accurate but also seem to have an inbuilt safety factor. Over the last few years of following yachts sail through the NW Passage during the melting season that the canadian maps will be slightly conservative when compared with MODIS and IJAS. When they show a lead through the ice you can be sure that it’s there.
“Arctic SIE has been very interesting for a couple of years now, and this year more so because of the way things are shaping up for the summer melt.” More sound bites. Why “very interesting”? What’s so very interesting about melting and freezing water? It happened for kazillions of years. One year more, the other year less. Have you measured the grow rate of grass lately? You see, that’s what I meant with obsession. Nothing personal Neven, there are plenty of other ppl who seem to be fascinated by even the smallest of change in structure of H2O molecules.
Hoi Polloi, an ice-free Arctic in the summer (many decades before it was projected to happen) will have an effect on climate (I as an alarmist believe it will be catastrophic naturally) and the climate debate. I find this makes it interesting. I’m sure you would agree with me if the Arctic sea ice would look to be ‘recovering’ even more this year. Unfortunately, for now this doesn’t seem to be the case, unless PIPS 2.0 is the model to trust, of course.
.
On-topic: Quite a heavy melt the past day: 155K. Let’s see what the revision later today does with it.
A relatively small revision of 13K makes yesterday’s melt 142K, this year’s 4th century break. 2010 held up quite well against the heavy melting around this date in previous years and leads 2006 by 154K, 2007 by 255K, 2008 by 430K and 2009 by 360K.
.
In previous years the melt wasn’t anything spectacular for another 3 weeks or so, although 2007 started it’s amazing run around the 20th of June with 18 century breaks in a little over 40 days.
.
I can’t imagine 2010 topping that, but let’s see what happens.
Neven (Comment#44834) June 6th, 2010 at 8:16 am
In previous years the melt wasn’t anything spectacular for another 3 weeks or so, although 2007 started it’s amazing run around the 20th of June with 18 century breaks in a little over 40 days.
.
I can’t imagine 2010 topping that, but let’s see what happens.
I thought a couple of months ago that there was a 20% chance that this year would surpass 2007, with the level of fragmentation I’ve seen over the last month I think that chance has increased.
Lucia, if it’s OK with you I’d like to point out that I tentatively have started a small blog that is devoted to the Arctic sea ice. I’m not sure how interesting it will be for me to do or for others to follow, but I’m hoping some of the smarter guys can come and comment every once in a while, so all interesting news, data and knowledge gather in one place.
The blog is here.
Neven– good going!
Lucia
Thanks, Lucia. I’ll be linking to your monthly bets.
Lucia, this graph makes no sense to me. What years signify which? Could you please change the format? Secondly, and I have not heard anyone say this, it seems to me the most accurate way to measure the artic is by weight. Is it possible to post a graph of the arctic showing weight from 1970-2009?