Firstly there has been defence (in comments there) of Prof Wadhams after he was reported in the press as stating that he had suspected that someone might be assassinating leading sea ice scientists. The story was initially reported in the Telegraph (and others), for example the following quote from the Telegraph.
Now, as reported by Stoat (sourced from the Grauniad), the IPSO has ruled against Wadhams finding that he was accurately quoted, that consequently he had no right to reply, and that he was fully aware that most of his statements were on the record. Notably, in a 30 minute 'on the record' segment of the interview, about 20 minutes concentrated on Wadhams' bizarre conspiracy theory, this was not just a throw away comment.Asked if he thought hitmen might have been behind the deaths, Prof Wadhams, who is Professor of ocean physics at Cambridge University, told The Telegraph: “Yes. I do believe assassins possibly murdered them but I can see that I would be thought of as a looney for believing this.""But it’s just very odd coincidence that something like that should happen in such a brief period of time.”He added: “They [the deaths] were accidents as far as anybody was able to tell but the fact they were clustered like that looked so weird.”Asked who might have wanted them out the way, he replied: “I can only think of the oil lobby but I don’t think the oil lobby goes around killing people.”
Next, Tamino has used change point analysis and finds that in the annual average after a decrease from 2003 to 2007 the post 2007 has seen a flattening, while in the September extent there is a loss rate change after the mid 1990s. This September extent loss starting in the late 1990s reflects the findings of Lindsay & Zhang. This data needs careful consideration to explain why the two metrics are different, I'll probably have a look at this issue in the future. On a lighter note Tamino also rubbishes some dolt who has been re-posted by the swivel eyed loons in the GWPF, using cherry picked data to claim a recovery of Arctic sea ice. Such stupidity leaves me bereft of words.
Now to the main reason for this post, the Sea Ice Prediction Network results. I posted my prediction on 27 June, which used April PIOMAS data, so could have been posted in early May, it will be next year. My prediction was for a September minimum of 5.15M km^2 +/- 0.64M km^2. The same prediction was entered for July and August, with the qualification that I expected the final result to be in the lower half of the range.
NSIDC monthly extent for September has now been posted, at 4.63M km^2 this is comfortably above the lower bound of my prediction (4.51M km^2). Looking at the overall pattern it has been a good year for success in SIPN, with the September minimum falling within the bulk of predictions sharing a common range being successful, albeit at the lower end of the range. This year's actual minimum is marked by a black line at 4.6M km^2.
That 2015 ended at the lower end of the range of that bulk overlap of predictions is not surprising due to the strong dipole that dominated July. 2015 has settled suggestions of a possible rebound, there is no rebound or recovery, the trend of sea ice loss continues downwards, this is supported by the success of Hamilton's SIPN prediction which is based on a linear fit to September extent.
For the sake of completeness, in the post detailing my SIPN prediction I also made a prediction for Cryosphere Today Area, the 2015 daily minimum was 3.09M km^2 on 9 September. The prediction from late June was 3.0 to 3.8M km^2, so this was successful, although again at the lower end of the range.
With 2007 now nine years ago, we have just five more melt seasons to 2020 and a new decade....