My Arctic Ice Forecast

I am not going to make a prediction of September ice extent this year. It is a crap shoot, based on 15% ice concentration – which is highly dependent on the winds in August and early September.

More meaningful measures are ice thickness and ice age. PIPS is dead, so I can’t make any more comparisons of thickness, but NSIDC provides ice age data.

My forecast is that come the end of September, the amount of multi-year ice will again  increase relative to last year, as it has done every year since 2008. In 2013 there should be an increase in the amount of five year old ice, because that is when the 2008 ice will have aged five years.

About stevengoddard

Just having fun
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

31 Responses to My Arctic Ice Forecast

  1. Paul H says:

    What’s happened to PIPS?

    • Someone must have got to them. Their data defied the official line.

      • Ill wind blowing says:

        “Someone must have got to them. Their data defied the official line.”

        It’s a conspiracy orchestrated by left handed; red headed; Lesbian Marxists, in alliance with Vegan Eco-Fascists. They want to force the people of rich nations to eat worms and grubs while handing over their Filet Minions to third World countries.

        I know for sure because I saw it written on Glenn Beck’s board.

      • Amino Acids in Meteorites says:

        Ill wind

        That really is the best you can come up with? You just are not very bright.

  2. suyts says:

    I think you’re right. Do the Danes measure ice thickness or multi-year ice?

  3. Jussi says:

    The amount of multi-year ice will increase only in percentages. In volumes or areas it will propably not increase.

  4. Ill wind blowing says:

    I remember, once upon a time, WUWT predicting that the ice cap was going to expand to 1979 levels and thickness in a few years! I would constantly hear that thickness did not matter, only extent. Now we have a complete reversal in skeptic science.

    I guess that the shrinking of extent has become so obvious that skeptics can no longer hold on to their previous delusions scientific reasoning. I think I hear a fox looking at the shrinking ice cap and crying out “spoiled grapes”?

    Of course, we need to scapegoat the winds. Never mind that those winds have been blowing in the Arctic since time immemorial. They did not continuously reduce the ice cap because the Arctic was cold enough to recover year after decade.

    I can imagine the end result. The ice extent will keep getting ‘blown’ away. But it we’re told that it has to get thicker and thicker. I can picture it now; 20 year ice over 10,000 square kilometers.

    I can’t wait; I just can’t wait. 😉

    • Latitude says:

      “They did not continuously reduce the ice cap because the Arctic was cold enough to recover year after decade. ”

      Got a date on that Ill?
      You missed my question to you a while back.
      Temperatures rose .6 degrees between 1700-1800, why?

    • Amino Acids in Meteorites says:


      I wouldn’t wait for Ill wind to be able to verify is bizarre world of strange exaggerations.

    • suyts says:

      IWB, you keep babbling about that prediction….. I’ve asked for a link. I can’t seem to find it.

  5. Ill wind blowing says:

    Common sense should tell you that if winds are a constant feature in the Arctic then they should have flushed out the entire ice cap of multi-year ice loooong ago. Also, you’re on shaky ground if you try to infer ice extent based on the warmth of a specific region; even if it is adjacent or close to the Arctic.

    As far as the Roy Spencer chart that you linked to is concerned, I did respond to you. That chart ends at around 1920-1925. The crude dotted line after that date shows an upward spike. While the spike doesn’t (yet) reach the tallest spike in RS chart there are other charts of the entire Northern Hemisphere that show a very different picture. So I assume that your chart is a regional chart.

    • P.J. says:

      Posted above:

      @IWB: Have you seen this?:

      Check it out and the comment below it …. it is time you put up or shut up.

      • Ill wind blowing says:

        Boy you’re really desperate!

        I posted a link above in response but here it is again so that you don’t spam this thread with your chest thumping.

        By the way, my understanding is that those colored box thingies are a security measure intended to prevent what you claim is happening.

      • P.J. says:

        Blade claimed it, but it looked plausible so I pursued it since you didn’t respond to his post. Here is my response:

        1) “I checked the troll’s (true patriot) comments expecting that there must have been some similarity to mine. No similarity in writing style.”

        Why would there be? If it is a plant, it would be too obvious if it were in your writing style. Duh!

        2) “Also, his name (true patriot) sounds familiar, so I’m going to do some research when I have the time.”

        Doesn’t sound familiar to me. If you can find other things he has posted, great … that would clear up the confusion.

        3) “PJ responds:
        “To Ill wind blowing: Why don’t you come clean and ‘fess up. You or an associate planted the “truepatriot” posts. Come on, be a man. And remember, you’re under oath “ ”

        I didn’t say those words … I said, “put up or shut up”. It may mean something similar, but please stop putting words in my mouth. You have done that to me and others here before.

        4) ““But leftists are not bound by morals or ethics. Know thy enemy.””

        I didn’t sayt hat either. Do your homework.

        5) “First, I’m not leftist”

        Then what are you? Greenie? Anarchist? When I have asked you before about certain things (ie: what are you donig to prevent global warming since you believe in it), you haven’t responded. So again I ask, what are you?

        6) “Second, your comment says a lot about your mentality.” and “You’re displaying the same paranoia that others in different websites have shown …”

        My mentality? To many of us here, you are the one that appears to have something wrong in your head. Your repeated references to “theocracy watch” shows exactly that. I couldn’t believe the paranoid drivel on that site. It is so ridiculous I don’t know whether to laugh or be afraid that there are people out there (like you) that believe in such stupidity.

        7) “Yet, I have never seen anything as vitriolic as the comments made by the far majority of the Right. Your comments and paranoia are a perfect example.”

        Funny … we on the right see the left in the exact same way. I had an experience where I got involved with my union despite being a conservative. I kept my mouth shut and my head down and tried my hardest to keep an open mind. I was stunned by the level of absolute disdain they had for conservatives. The open mockery and hatred was unbelievable. I stopped my involvement when I couldn’t take it any more, and have not got involved since.

        8) If you (or an associate) didn’t post the “true patriot”, fair enough … I will take your word for it. But what you don’t seem to understand is that what you take for paranoia and what I (and many here) take for paranoia are not the same thing. We will have to agree to disagree. I have said all I have to say about this. TTFN …

      • P.J. says:

        P.S. The “smiley face” was supposed to be a number “8” … don’t know what happened there.

      • Ill wind blowing says:


        My apologies for getting you and Blade confused. You were the one who alerted me to the link but I failed to see that it was written by somebody else. Other than the name confusion, the points I’ve made either apply generally or apply to Blade in particular.

        One thing I’ve noticed here is that the more carefully I write, the less people understand. As far as your point by point statements:

        1. The “troll” I was referring to is not Truepatriot. I was referring to an event completely unrelated to this matter simply to highlight the fact that there is a lot of irrational paranoia on Consewrvative websites.

        2. When I said that Truepatriots name sounded familiar I made no specific reference to this site. It should have been obvious that it sounded familiar to me, period. You should be able to deduce the fact that we don’t all visit the same sites, therefore, what I’m familiar with is not going to correlate with what you’re familiar with.

        3. Again that was the result of my name confusion. What I said applies to Blade and is a direct cut and paste quote from him. My apologies for inadvertently applying it to you.

        4. Same as above.

        5. There is no word for what I am. I would have to describe my beliefs but that would be irrelevant to this site. Learn from Skeptical Science; they will snip you if you make political comments on either side.

        A brief digression. I can testify to the veracity of what I just said because I myself (who is known to be friendly) simply directed a joke to a newbie warning that he should be careful in using the word “denier”. Both our comments were snipped. SS is far more evenhanded than WUWT and here where the friendly side gets away with name calling but the other side does not.

        6. Again that was with reference to Blade’s post which I mistakenly assumed was yours. However the comment is appropriate in light of what I quoted him as saying.

        7. Everyone’s perception is clouded but I visit websites on both sides and there is an obvious and marked difference between the character of both sides. All the more in the issue of GW when I compare WUWT and this site to SkS. In all fairness this site is not as bad as WUWT.

        Nevertheless, Blade would not have been allowed to get away with what he said on SkS even if it had been directed at Skeptics. I know because I’ve seen the snipping and Moderator’s comments with my own eye as the even transpired.

        8. As for paranoia look at Blade’s statements where he tries to paint some damning expose of me simply by listing the times of my posting. He is also assumed that I’m using diabolical tactics and said that the Feds would probably get involved if he did the same.

        Again I apologize PJ, for getting the two of you confused, I jump around too much and sometimes slip up as to who’s posting.

      • P.J. says:

        “Again I apologize PJ, for getting the two of you confused, I jump around too much and sometimes slip up as to who’s posting.”

        Not a problem. I visit other sites, but this is the only one I comment on, simply because I like the crowd here. Please accept my apologies for saying, “put up or shut up”. I have been a little snippy lately (fatigue) which isn’t usually my nature.

        Thanks for taking the time to respond … I appreciate your candor. Though we will probably not agree on much, the fact that we are posting back and forth is something I appreciate … free speech is something I really value. Cheers!

    • Latitude says:

      Ill wind blowing says:
      June 19, 2011 at 11:23 pm
      As far as the Roy Spencer chart that you linked to is concerned, I did respond to you. That chart ends at around 1920-1925.
      Temperatures rose .6 degrees between 1700-1800, why?

      • Ill wind blowing says:

        That’s not a counter-response to my previous response.

        I have to go to run a couple hours worth of errands but I’ll check back when I can.

      • Latitude says:

        Ill, it’s not a counter response to anything…..
        ….it’s the original question I asked you that you never answered
        It’s the only question I’ve been asking

        But while you trying to figure that one out.
        Figure out how temperatures dropped .6 degrees in only 50 years, between 1400-1450…
        That’s a drop of 1.2 degrees a century, when CO2 levels were ~280

        and why there was a decrease in CO2 when temperatures started to rise…..

  6. Amino Acids in Meteorites says:

    It’s odd how some people can look at graphs of ice increasing and then say ice is not increasing.

  7. AndyW says:

    I tend to disagree on the winds in Aug and Sept having too much of an effect for sea ice extent, ok they have some but especially in September daily changes are a lot less than in Aug and July so winds then will just fine tune it.

    Also, if you are going to simply say more multiyear ice for your estimate this year you can just as well say more or less sea ice extent. The winds would not affect it then unless it was very close and then you can correctly say it was down to weather.

    So fancy saying more or less sea ice extent this year?


  8. Neven says:

    I am not going to make a prediction of September ice extent this year. It is a crap shoot, based on 15% ice concentration – which is highly dependent on the winds in August and early September.

    And, of course, you were off by 1 million square km last year. 😛

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s