Arctic Ice Volume Has Increased 25% Since May, 2008

By Steve Goddard and Anthony Watts

The Navy requires accurate sea ice information for their operations, and has spent a lot of effort over the years studying, measuring, and operating in Arctic ice both above and below, such as they did in the ICEX 2009 exercise.

The US Navy attack submarine USS Annapolis (SSN 760) rests in the Arctic Ocean after surfacing through three feet of ice during Ice Exercise 2009 on March 21, 2009. The two-week training exercise, which is used to test submarine operability and war-fighting capability in Arctic conditions, also involved the USS Helena (SSN 725), the University of Washington and personnel from the Navy Arctic Submarine Laboratory.

So, if you are planning on bringing a $900 million Los Angeles class submarine through the ice, as the captain might say to the analyst after receiving an ice report: “you’d better be damn sure of the ice thickness before I risk the boat and the crew”.

Below is a blink comparator of U.S. Navy PIPS sea ice forecast data, zoomed to show the primary Arctic ice zone.

The blink map above shows the change in ice thickness from May 27, 2008 to May 27, 2010. As you can see, there has been a large increase in the area of ice more than two metres thick – turquoise, green, yellow and red. Much of the thin (blue and purple) ice has been replaced by thicker ice.

Source images for the blink comparator:

http://www7320.nrlssc.navy.mil/pips2/archive/pips2_thick/2008/pips2_thick.2008052700.gif
http://www7320.nrlssc.navy.mil/pips2/archive/pips2_thick/2010/pips2_thick.2010052700.gif

This was quantified by measuring the area percentage in the Arctic Basin of the 0-1, 1-2, 2-3, 3-4, and 4-5 metre ranges. The graph below shows the results. This technique assumes an equal area projection, which should be fairly accurate north of 70N.

In 2008, less than half of the ice (47%) was greater than two metres thick. Now, more than 75% of the ice is greater than two metres thick. In 2008, 18% of the ice was more than three metres thick. This year that number has increased to 28%. There has been nearly across the board ice thickening since 2008. There was slightly more 4-5 metre ice in 2008, due to the big crunch in the summer of 2007.

Now on to calculating the volume. That calculation is straightforward :

volume = (A1 * 0.5) + (A2 * 1.5) + (A3 * 2.5) + (A4 * 3.5) + (A5 * 4.5)

Where A1 is the area of ice less than one metre, A2 is the area of ice less than two metres, etc.  The 2010/2008 volume ratio came out to 1.24, which means there has been approximately a 25% increase in volume over the last two years. The average thickness has increased from about 2.0 metres to 2.5 metres. That means an extra 20 inches of ice will have to melt this summer. So far, this seems unlikely with the cold Arctic temperatures over the last couple of weeks.

http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/plots/meanTarchive/meanT_2010.png

Now let’s look at the volume percentages. In 2010, 87% of the ice (by volume)  is greater than two metres thick. But in 2008, only 64% of the ice (by volume) was greater than two metres thick.

A few weeks ago, when extent was highest in the JAXA record, our friends were asking for “volume, not extent.” Their wishes have been answered. Ice volume has increased by 25% in the last two years, and those looking for a big melt are likely going to be disappointed.

Here is the measured data:

Do you think it odd that this increase isn’t prominently mentioned on the PIOMAS site? It seems very relevant.

———————————————–

If a man will begin with certainties, he shall end in doubts; but if he will be content to begin with doubts he shall end in certainties.
- Sir Francis Bacon


Sponsored IT training links:
If your are looking for quick success in 350-018 exam then join today to explore useful 642-974 resources and pass EX0-101 on first try guaranteed.


About these ads
This entry was posted in Arctic, Sea ice. Bookmark the permalink.

179 Responses to Arctic Ice Volume Has Increased 25% Since May, 2008

  1. kwik says:

    Again, Steve, Thank you for endulging us with your interesting posts!
    We are approaching interesting times.

  2. Al Gore's Holy Hologram says:

    Volume is everything.

  3. I should mention that I measured this just inside the Arctic Basin – excluding the Greenland Sea, Baffin Bay, Hudson Bay and anywhere south of 70N. When the entire Arctic is included, the increase in volume is close to 40% since 2008.

    So the numbers presented here are quite conservative.

  4. geo says:

    I await July 1 with great interest to see many theories begin to be confirmed or exploded (including my own).

  5. mack520 says:

    The models contradict this. The Navy are not qualified Climate Scientists. Will you believe peer reviewed models or will you deny science?

  6. Lance says:

    Gosh, there is even MORE rotten ice, if it rots anymore, icebreakers and submarines will not get through in late August!! Did Al Gore visit Southern Alberta these last few days…i have recorded over 30 cm of ‘rotten’ global warming here (from the department of weather is not climate)….

  7. bubbagyro says:

    Uh-oh!
    This looks worse than a Maunder minimum – it is coming on too fast. The world is not prepared, at all, thanks to the warm-earthers.

  8. manfredkintop says:

    Gentlemen,

    As you have both demonstrated, countless times in the past, no matter how much data, number crunching, and observed empirical evidence you present…there are those who will vehemently argue that 1+1 = 3. New math in a post-normal science world.

    Keep up the great work.

  9. FergalR says:

    This is the base for the PIOMAS anomaly : http://psc.apl.washington.edu/ArcticSeaiceVolume/images/PIOMAS_daily_mean.png

    if PIPS is correct then the volume anomaly is near zero.

  10. a reader says:

    Has anyone produced papers from the Arctic ice data which was declassified by Al Gore’s request in about 1996 or 1997?

  11. manfredkintop says:

    mack520 says:
    May 29, 2010 at 10:32 am

    The models contradict this. The Navy are not qualified Climate Scientists. Will you believe peer reviewed models or will you deny science?

    I’m not sure if you are being sarcastic with this comment…if not, your statement underscores the problem with what you are interpreting as “science”.

  12. kwik

    Yes, this week’s Sea Ice News is going to be very interesting ;^)

  13. Hockeystickler says:

    excellent article Anthony and Steve, although I suspect that you will soon have critics at the gates. the United States Navy continues its proud tradition of serving the American people.

  14. sunsettommy says:

    Meanwhile there is no apparent connection between CO2 and Ice levels in the Arctic.Here is a neat chart showing the divergent lines on the chart:

    http://www.globalwarmingskeptics.info/forums/thread-188-post-3137.html#pid3137

    Then we have this Greenland temperature chart of the last 15,000 years showing that for the last 10,000 of those years.It has been oscillating in a narrow band of temperature range.Suggesting that there is very little warming UPWARD on the chart left to work with.

    http://www.globalwarmingskeptics.info/forums/thread-188-post-3130.html#pid3130

    Since it is apparent that there is only a short time in the summer that it is above freezing and that even in high noon,the sun is still low on the horizon.Thus not a whole lot of melting is from the air or sun.

    That leaves winds and water temperature changes.

  15. Billy Liar says:

    I think you may be falling into the same trap as the AGW crowd. Your figures, though accurately, and conservatively, calculated are ultimately based on a model – PIPS2. I’d be more cautious – dare I say skeptical.

  16. Peter Miller says:
  17. tommy says:

    Cold arctic? It seems to be about normal for this time according to that graph. The temp at this time in 2007 was lower than it is now as well and yet we set a new low “record” that year.

  18. Glen Shevlin says:

    mack520 says:
    May 29, 2010 at 10:32 am
    The models contradict this. The Navy are not qualified Climate Scientists. Will you believe peer reviewed models or will you deny science?

    Models vs observed results…

    Facts vs computer models

    USN says facts win…

  19. Hockeystickler

    I’m sure you are correct that people will criticize, but looking at the PIPS images there can be little doubt that there is widespread thickening over the last two years.

    So I guess people will just have to set up strawmen, change the subject, engage in ad homs, appeal to authority, etc.

  20. AGW-Skeptic99 says:

    Other than the interest in questioning the validity of the CAGW models, does the Arctic ice really matter to anyone except the polar bears who are not land based? Would the climate of the rest of the world be impacted by ice free water at the North Pole in August or September, even presuming that it was to happen during this cycle?

  21. Mike says:

    If you look back you will find a year where the ice volume is larger or smaller than today. Instead one could do science:

    http://psc.apl.washington.edu/ArcticSeaiceVolume/images/BPIOMASIceVolumeAnomalyCurrent.png

    http://psc.apl.washington.edu/ArcticSeaiceVolume/IceVolume.php

  22. tommy

    I tend to think of -5C on Memorial Day weekend as being cold.
    http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/map/ANIM/sfctmpmer_01a.fnl.29.gif

  23. Billy Liar

    The PIPS model is constantly updated with real time information. So it does not suffer from long-term compounded errors like a climate model.

  24. E Porat says:

    stevengoddard says:
    May 29, 2010 at 10:29 am

    I should mention that I measured this just inside the Arctic Basin – excluding the Greenland Sea, Baffin Bay, Hudson Bay and anywhere south of 70N. When the entire Arctic is included, the increase in volume is close to 40% since 2008.

    So the numbers presented here are quite conservative.

    Gosh! its much worse than we expected… /sarcasm off

  25. Mike says:

    
    AGW-Skeptic99 says:
    May 29, 2010 at 11:10 am
    “Other than the interest in questioning the validity of the CAGW models, does the Arctic ice really matter to anyone except the polar bears who are not land based? Would the climate of the rest of the world be impacted by ice free water at the North Pole in August or September, even presuming that it was to happen during this cycle?”

    There is a lot info on this topic here:

    http://www.acia.uaf.edu/

    I have not read much on of their 140 page report and no expert but think it should address your question. I also found this:

    “The polar bear has become the poster child of global warming, but there’s more to the Arctic than ice and polar bears. Beyond these two famous and prominent features of the Arctic environment, there is an entire intricate ecosystem of wildlife and plant life that will be profoundly affected by a prolonged warming trend in the Arctic.”

    http://www.pbs.org/wnet/nature/episodes/arctic-bears/arctic-bears-the-melting-arctics-impact-on-its-ecosystem/780/

    This study is a bit old but may be of interest:

    East Asian winter monsoon and Arctic Oscillation,
    Geophysical Research Letter, Vol 28, No., May 15 2001

    http://climate.eas.gatech.edu/dai/daigroup/staff/gongdaoyi/doc/East%20Asian%20winter%20monsoon%20and%20Arctic%20Oscillation.pdf

    Finally here is an alarmist article, IMHO. Notice how different the tone is than in the science papers. I include it so readers with learn not to lump all who are concerned about AGW into one camp.

    http://www.countercurrents.org/pearce310309.htm

  26. Richard111 says:

    I have problems trying to understand how air temperatures, which only exceed zero degrees for about 70 days each year, and never seem to exceed +3C, can melt different amounts of ice each year. In fact the melting starts long before air temperatures get close to 0C. Therefore melting must occur mostly under the ice. That can only be reported by measuring the ice thickness. Measuring area and relating it to ice melt seems meaningless when ice gets fractured and broken up at the edges by wind and wave action. That is not melting due to temperature. So whos reports to believe?

  27. Phil. says:

    stevengoddard says:
    May 29, 2010 at 11:06 am
    Hockeystickler

    I’m sure you are correct that people will criticize, but looking at the PIPS images there can be little doubt that there is widespread thickening over the last two years.

    Based on that model perhaps but the actual data contradicts it, so there is plenty of doubt that there is ‘widespread thickening’, the balance of evidence supports thinning. Just after that supposed consolidation the old ice in that area broke up and flushed out, for example see here: http://ice-glaces.ec.gc.ca/app/WsvPageDsp.cfm?Lang=eng&lnid=48&ScndLvl=no&ID=11892

    So I guess people will just have to set up strawmen, change the subject, engage in ad homs, appeal to authority, etc.

    That is your usual behavior:
    E.g. appeal to authority:
    Steve Goddard says:
    May 28, 2010 at 2:28 pm
    Anu

    You are the one determined to prove pips wrong. Please come back when you have that proof.

  28. barry says:

    The models contradict this. The Navy are not qualified Climate Scientists. Will you believe peer reviewed models or will you deny science?

    The sea ice thickness graphs from the Navy are forecasts predicted by…. models.

    This is the first sentence from the front page of the section Steve and Anthony got the graphs from.

    The Polar Ice Prediction System (PIPS 2.0) is the operational model run by the Naval Oceanographic Office (NAVO) for sea ice forecasting.

    http://www7320.nrlssc.navy.mil/pips2/

    Models bad, right?

  29. rbateman says:

    manfredkintop says:
    May 29, 2010 at 10:53 am

    Peer reviewed models, now that’s a hoot.
    Must be a new form of AI : Artificially Imagined
    The GCM Supercomputer breathes as billions are pumped through it’s veins (some leeches are naturally attached) while immersed in a brine of fear. Someobody put the wrong fluid in, and the thing is screaming as embalming fluid sears the circuits.

  30. TGSG says:

    Peter Miller says:
    Pete, Tinyurl.com is your friend.

    I would put lots of trust in the USN.

  31. DirkH says:

    mack520 says:
    May 29, 2010 at 10:32 am:
    “The models contradict this.”

    Funniest on thread, whether sarcastic or not!

  32. barry says:

    There is more ice cover in 2008. There is less 5 metre ice in 2010. There is less 2 metre ice in 2010.

    On the same day in 2007, the year of record melt, there is similar ice cover to 27 May 2010, but there is much more thick ice in 2007. In 2010, the thickest ice apparent in 2007 is nearly all gone.

    I wouldn’t be too confident about placing bets.

  33. Just The Facts says:

    So Arctic Sea Ice Volume seems to have increased in the last two years, and Antarctic Sea Ice Area (Can anyone figure out the Volume?) has been trending above average over that period;
    http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/seaice.recent.antarctic.png

    so where has all of the rapid and alarming sea ice melt been occurring?

  34. Mike says:

    sunsettommy says:
    May 29, 2010 at 10:57 am
    “Meanwhile there is no apparent connection between CO2 and Ice levels in the Arctic.”

    From what I have read you are right. The greenhouse effect is not the major direct cause of Arctic warming. Ocean currents that are warmer than because of greenhouse effect warm and melt the ice. Less ice cover increases the direct heat absorption setting off a positive feedback.

    http://www.skepticalscience.com/What-causes-Arctic-amplification.html
    http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v464/n7293/full/nature09051.html
    http://www.skepticalscience.com/Melting-ice-isnt-warming-Arctic.htm

    Another factor maybe “black carbon,” basically soot.

    http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/warming_aerosols.html

    Note: These references do not support my claim that GHG caused warmer ocean currents to reach the Arctic. I do recall reading this and will continue look for a reference.

  35. Keith at hastings UK says:

    RE
    AGW-Skeptic99 says:
    May 29, 2010 at 11:10 am

    Other than the interest in questioning the validity of the CAGW models, does the Arctic ice really matter to anyone except the polar bears who are not land based? Would the climate of the rest of the world be impacted by ice free water at the North Pole in August or September, even presuming that it was to happen during this cycle?
    ————————————————————–
    I’m no expert but have conceived the Arctic as a major vehicle for getting rid of heat from the Earth, esp during Autumn & Spring: radiation to space from open water during darkness, including the heat load from freezing the ice being lost to space over the winter. In Spring, the melting (if any) would absorb heat into water vapour I suppose….anyway, I had thought it a negative feedback system, with heat transported from the Tropics. Whether or not the Arctic is frozen must affect all this and hence the relationship between heat and temperatures on a global scale??
    Happy to be corrected, but my take is that the Arctic has a global impact.

  36. kadaka (KD Knoebel) says:

    FergalR said on May 29, 2010 at 10:46 am

    This is the base for the PIOMAS anomaly : http://psc.apl.washington.edu/ArcticSeaiceVolume/images/PIOMAS_daily_mean.png

    if PIPS is correct then the volume anomaly is near zero.

    That chart is referenced on the Polar Science Center page thusly:

    Anomalies for each day are calculated relative to the average over the 1979 -2009 period for that day to remove the annual cycle.

    I find that graph troubling, as it looks like a sine wave mixed with an alternating ramping-up sawtooth wave. It says the volume goes down rapidly in the melt season yet takes a much longer time to go back up again. This seems in variance with the normal sinusoidal look of an extent graph like from IARC-JAXA. It tells me the waters will heat up quickly yet cool down slowly. Yet after so much of the insulating ice layer has vanished by the end of the summer melt, wouldn’t all that open water quickly radiate the heat away, cooling off rapidly? I thought all that thin ice at the edges was supposed to melt away first. But with such a steep decline in volume versus the extent graphs, doesn’t this mean the thicker ice is melting away fastest?

    Of course the data for that chart, well, doesn’t appear to exist. It looks like somehow they were hindcasting, running the model backwards to get the data, then punching the data into the model for that daily average. There is no database of continuous measurements of volume from 1979 to 2009 to use for that chart, thus the model would seem to be the only source available for a comprehensive set of numbers they could use.

  37. Mike says:

    
    Here is support for my claim that oceans currents warmed by AGW are a factor is Arctic sea ice loss.

    “The North Atlantic has seen especially large changes in recent years.
    The temperature of the water that flows into the Arctic has increased by as much as 3.5 degrees F (2 degrees C) since the 1990s, says Helge Drange, professor of oceanography at Norway’s University of Bergen. “This can only be understood as a combined effect of natural variability and manmade warming,” he says. “

    Warming ocean melts Greenland glaciers
    http://www.physorg.com/news172917431.html

    But this 2004 article attributes most changes in Arctic climate to natural causes.

    
    Winds, Ice Motion Root Cause Of Decline In Sea Ice, Not Warmer Temperatures
    http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2004/12/041220010410.htm

    Would be great if someone found balanced overview of the causes of Arctic warming. Many factors are likely at play.

  38. kadaka (KD Knoebel) says:

    Mike said on May 29, 2010 at 11:19 am:

    If you look back you will find a year where the ice volume is larger or smaller than today. Instead one could do science:

    http://psc.apl.washington.edu/ArcticSeaiceVolume/images/BPIOMASIceVolumeAnomalyCurrent.png

    http://psc.apl.washington.edu/ArcticSeaiceVolume/IceVolume.php

    Ah, “doing science.” So that’s what you young people are calling it these days.

  39. latitude says:

    “mack520 says:
    May 29, 2010 at 10:32 am
    The models contradict this. The Navy are not qualified Climate Scientists. Will you believe peer reviewed models or will you deny science?”

    mack, I got it, and thanks for the laugh.

  40. Michael says:

    The AGW theory consensus will soon be, the theory doesn’t hold water.

  41. Richard111

    Wind, clouds and sea temperature are the variables which affect the amount of energy melting the ice during summer.

  42. Athelstan says:

    What does the Caitlin crew have to say?
    Did the US Navy consult them?
    I think old mother Gaia has had enough of threats of an ‘ice free Arctic’, I do keep an eye on the ice expanse and the observations, the sea ice has recovered and that has quietened some MSM TV stations – notably the BBC (no more panic reportage of Inuit hunters losing their livelihoods, though the polar bears plight is still news).

    I am awaiting a report on the ‘recovering sea ice’ but alas they choose to ignore the facts……….. if they don’t suit the meme…….. of CAGW, then eyes and heads (at the BBC) are averted/stuck firmly in the sand.

  43. Steve
    I am sure there will be an ‘attack of the Deltoidoids’ for this!

  44. Tom in Florida says:

    It’s never been about length, always about thickness.

  45. Smokey says:

    The article’s reference to the USS Helena has some personal interest to me, since our boy was stationed on her for most of his 6 year Navy hitch. He was a nuclear reactor specialist.

    He’s just been accepted into UC Berkeley’s nuclear engineering program. I tried to convince him windmills were the future, but he was having none of it…

  46. GeoFlynx says:

    Maybe this is the data that got confused with snowpack in Arizona.

  47. Smokey says:

    Keith at hastings UK says:
    May 29, 2010 at 12:14 pm :

    “I’m no expert but have conceived the Arctic as a major vehicle for getting rid of heat from the Earth, esp during Autumn & Spring: radiation to space… Happy to be corrected, but my take is that the Arctic has a global impact.”

    It does. Pretty much equal to the Antarctic’s.☺

  48. bubbagyro says:

    kadaka (KD Knoebel) says:
    May 29, 2010 at 12:27 pm

    Please look up a couple of things on Ask Sam:
    1) heat capacity of water in its various forms
    2) latent heat of crystallization or evaporation.

    Then get back to us. Then you will know why freezing and thawing cycles have different slopes.

    For models buffs, forecasting science is appropriate for small time frames when there are few variables. For example, I can record that my fingernails grow one mm/month in the past year. I can then forecast that they will grow one mm ± a few percent next month. I would bet the farm on it.

    I can also take ice records, such as the sinusoidal ones shown. I can predict that there will be ice loss ± a certain percentage for June 2010, for example, and be right on the money.

    ∴, Few variables, very short time frames, models aren’t too bad.
    But, hundreds of variables, scores or hundreds of years, models are not so good. In fact, with the warm-earther models, most seem to be dead wrong.

  49. Claude Harvey says:

    Why all this fuss? I just read a CNN advice article that told me “Size doesn’t matter”. I was vastly relieved at the news.

  50. Ed Caryl says:

    • Ice melts from the bottom because the volumetric heat capacity of water is almost 4000 times that of air.
    • Wind and ocean currents move ice around a LOT.
    • Polar bears are opportunistic feeders. They forage on the ice because that is the easiest way to access the prey in the arctic, and that’s where the most prey lives. When there is no ice, they hunt on land (duh).
    • The chief cause of death for Polar Bears is bullets.
    • At one time, the chief cause of death for man in the arctic was Polar Bears. It still happens.
    Just some observations.

  51. rbateman says:

    so where has all of the rapid and alarming sea ice melt been occurring?

    A quick check of the global dipstick (sea levels) reveals that the system is doing just fine.
    False Alarm.

  52. David, UK says:

    Excellent post – yet again. Thank you. It just dawned on me (and not for the first time) that it’s actually quite sad that as a result of such political corruption of the scientific process, and the use of governmentally sponsored warped science to justify controlling our lives, many of us are actually looking forward to the return of an ice age – or at least another ‘little’ one. As devastating as this would be to lives and economies, I feel it would be the lesser of two evils. I fear anything less (e.g. a continuation of the minor cooling we’ve had over the last 10-15 years) would not be enough to stop the alarmist train.

  53. wayne says:

    Richard111 says:
    May 29, 2010 at 11:38 am
    I have problems trying to understand how air temperatures, which only exceed zero degrees for about 70 days each year, and never seem to exceed +3C, can melt different amounts of ice each year. In fact the melting starts long before air temperatures get close to 0C.

    Hey, there you go, thinking like a scientist! Kind of makes you think that maybe, just maybe, any variance in polar ice must primarily come from a few other prime factors, like the solar insolation levels and clouds, oceean currents and their temperatures, and purely wind velocities, not the surface air temperature per se. Don’t doubt yourself, you seem to be on the right track.

  54. rbateman says:

    Mike says:
    May 29, 2010 at 12:35 pm

    Here’s my support for natural causes of ocean waters affecting / not affecting Sea Ice :

    http://www.cpc.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/ensostuff/ensoyears.shtml
    Pop in 3 decades or so of predominant El Nino’s and you have toasty oceans.
    Do the opposite with 3 decades or so of La Nina’s and you get shiver me timber oceans.
    False Alarm. All units return to base.

  55. Tom P says:

    Steve,

    Your approach does not agree with the calculations from the the team actually producing these maps. The Navy PIPS team derive a loss in the May ice volume from 2007 to 2008 of 22%.

    http://www.nrl.navy.mil/content_images/09_Ocean_Posey.pdf

    Your figures give a corresponding loss of around 13%. You might want to contact the PIPS team to see how they derive their volume estimates and hence understand how best to use this data.

  56. David Ball says:

    Maybe the doomsayers were right. One of the four horsemen’s horses ( I believe it was Pestilence ) just took a dump on my front lawn, ………… You will all know me as I will be the one mooning you as I ascend into the sky during the “rapture”. Just kidding, I phoned and cancelled the order for thermaggedon. There is the small issue of the “re-stocking” fee that I would like to discuss,…….

  57. wayne says:

    While I’m here, many thanks to Steve, Anthony and Willis for the some very excellent articles as usual. Thanks all for the great science work!

  58. Jon says:

    Quick! Defame, insult, bury, assassinate, debunk, dismiss, before this gets to the press!

    I wonder how Al Gore is going to receive this tragic information.

  59. Kasmir says:

    “The North Atlantic has seen especially large changes in recent years.
    The temperature of the water that flows into the Arctic has increased by as much as 3.5 degrees F (2 degrees C) since the 1990s, says Helge Drange, professor of oceanography at Norway’s University of Bergen. “This can only be understood as a combined effect of natural variability and manmade warming,” he says. “

    So GHG increases measurably contributed to 2 degrees C warming in 15 years??? The one thing that can be surely understood is that incremental GHG related warming effects in that time period are a rounding error on the natural variability required to create such a temperature change.

  60. pat says:

    roger, next step is to use CAGW when that is the point of argument:

    29 May: BBC: Roger Harrabin: Harrabin’s Notes: Getting the message
    In his regular column, BBC environment analyst Roger Harrabin looks at the fall-out from complaints that some of the Royal Society had oversimplified its messages in public statements on climate change.
    Even at the Heartland Institute climate sceptics’ conference in Chicago last week most scientists seemed to agree that CO2 had probably warmed the planet at the end of the 20th century, over and above natural fluctuations.
    But they did not agree that the warming will be dangerous – and they object to being branded fools or hirelings for saying so.
    The attitude of the establishment to the sceptics shines through the succession of inquiries into controversial science at the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit (CRU).
    When at the launch of the Sir Muir Russell inquiry I asked about the credibility of the review panel in the blogosphere, Sir Muir dismissed the enquiry with the flick of a wrist – he had been a senior civil servant and he had run a university, his bona fides were beyond question.
    But the blogosphere does not respect past reputations, only current performance. And some of the top performers in the blogosphere are critics of the establishment.
    Steve McIntyre, for instance, is a mining engineer who started examining climate statistics as a hobby. He has taken on the scientific establishment on some key issues and won.
    He arguably knows more about CRU science than anyone outside the unit – but none of the CRU inquiries has contacted him for input.
    I have been told by the review teams that they can read McIntyre’s blog if they want to learn about his views. But they can’t have read all his blog entries surely? And they would have saved a lot of time and effort if they had asked him to summarise his scientific scrutiny on a couple of sheets of A4….
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science_and_environment/10178454.stm

  61. Pamela Gray says:

    The Ocean skin is not warmed further from the addition of AGHG’s, which constitute a very small fraction of natural GHG’s. Even water vapor can’t do it. Longwave infrared radiation does NOT like the barrier to water penetration that is known as surface tension. Even natural sources of GHG’s re-radiation cannot get LW past the thin surface tension skin to layers that could melt ice. In addition, the small bit of warming from LW is nearly immediately evaporated off. To wit: your backyard pool.

    You can do an experiment if you own a pool. Fill it with cold water. Let it sit in the Summer Sun on a clear day and measure temp change at different depths. You can measure heat penetration quite easily. If you don’t shake up the pool, you will notice layering. If you then give it a good mix, the surface will be cooler than it was under calm conditions. You are measuring shortwave radiation penetration. The properties of shortwave allow it to move through the water’s surface tension to amazing depth. The properties of longwave cannot do this.

    Another thing about your pool or hot tub. Water’s desire to evaporate when it is warm is greater than “eh hem” animal sex drive. This is why the pool you own, or the hot tub you have on your porch, comes with blankets to keep that warm water in there.

    If incoming Arctic currents are warmer, it is because the trade winds that blow at the equator calmed down, thus disallowing mixing between the warmer top layer and colder layers underneath it (as in your calm pool). This results in the current going into the Arctic to be warmer than usual. When the trade winds kick back up again, you get cooler currents (as in your agitated pool). AGHG has nothing whatsoever to do with ocean warming or cooling.

  62. jcrabb says:

    Arctic sea ice extent has hit below 2007 levels, one wonders what happened to the return?

    Does this blog have any scientific consistency or is it just engaged in a perpetual search for an escape from reality?

  63. Jim Clarke says:

    Mike said on May 29, 2010 at 11:19 am:

    If you look back you will find a year where the ice volume is larger or smaller than today. Instead one could do science:

    http://psc.apl.washington.edu/ArcticSeaiceVolume/images/BPIOMASIceVolumeAnomalyCurrent.png

    http://psc.apl.washington.edu/ArcticSeaiceVolume/IceVolume.php

    So on on side we have the Navy and on the other side we have a group called the Polar Science Center. A quick look at the PSC website reveals this:

    “Most of the funding for PSC’s research comes from grants and contracts with U.S. Federal agencies such as NSF, NASA, NOAA and ONR. ”

    So the Navy says the ice volume in the Arctic is up 25% in the last two years and the group whose very existence likely depends on the threat of global warming for most of their funding says the volume is way down. Hmmmm…who do you believe is the most accurate, the Navy trying to navigate the Arctic or the scientists trying to navigate Washington funding protocols?

  64. jcrabb says:

    Jim Clarke

    Do you really think NASA’s funding rely’s on the existence of Global warming? it is bizarre Americans are so quick to forget about NASA’s heroic conquest of space, this short term memory is reminescent of some sort of Soviet [snip].

  65. kadaka (KD Knoebel) says:

    From: bubbagyro on May 29, 2010 at 1:26 pm

    kadaka (KD Knoebel) says:
    May 29, 2010 at 12:27 pm

    Please look up a couple of things on Ask Sam:
    1) heat capacity of water in its various forms
    2) latent heat of crystallization or evaporation.

    Then get back to us. Then you will know why freezing and thawing cycles have different slopes.

    Not helpful. And what is this “Ask Sam” you speak of? I hit up Wikipedia. Surprisingly enough, the laws of physics haven’t changed. Still takes the same amount of energy inputted to change ice to water as needs to be removed to change water to ice.

    If I was looking at a solid block of ice, then there would be a long period where energy is absorbed before the ice rapidly melts. For solidification energy needs to be extracted from the water before freezing can start, then as more is removed the amount of ice will grow. Thus different slopes for freezing and thawing.

    But the Arctic sea ice is not a solid block, and heat doesn’t instantaneously transmit through the water. Generally the heat comes in at the southern edges, where there are many small pieces of thin ice. They start soaking up the energy first, they melt first. The heat works its way northward where there are thicker pieces requiring more energy to melt, thus they take longer. The refreeze then goes from the north downward as heat is lost, moving outwards from ice that survived the melt, ending again with the thin outer edges. This is my basic thought picture of the process, which is admittedly quite simplified. It does not account for the graphed sudden drop in volume, so much faster than the refreeze. But it is more realistic than considering what happens in a beaker in the lab.

    I’m afraid you’ll have to supply some more and better info to explain the dramatic differences on that graph to me.

  66. Smokey says:

    jcrabb says:
    May 29, 2010 at 2:39 pm

    “Arctic sea ice extent has hit below 2007 levels, one wonders what happened to the return? Does this blog have any scientific consistency or is it just engaged in a perpetual search for an escape from reality?”

    It is Mr Crabb who avoids facing reality.

    The basic question regards global ice cover. By avoiding the uncomfortable fact that the growth in the Antarctic ice cover offsets the Arctic, crabb is allowing his CAGW alarmism to cloud his thinking. Now he’s gone into a belief system, and as a result he should discuss his beliefs with similar believers. I recommend RealClimate, climate progress, tamino or deltoid. They cater to believers to the extent that they all censor posts contrary to their belief system.

    It is also bizarre that crabb believes that by NASA resting on its past laurels, it should still be entitled to continued high levels of funding — which takes much needed dollars out of uncorrupted areas of science.

  67. Tom P

    This article covers 2008-2010 and I didn’t calculate any numbers prior to that. The death spiral period from 2008-2010 has seen a significant gain.

  68. Enneagram says:

    OK, there is plenty of ice, now, where is the whiskey?

  69. Amino Acids in Meteorites says:

    It’s less than four months until Arctic ice starts regrowth. Time goes by fast. We will know very soon who is right and who is wrong (again). :-)

  70. Amino Acids in Meteorites says:

    Steven Goddard,

    this is OT to Arctic ice but is still about global warming predictions. Could you do a post (if Anthony approves) on how far south snow lines are reaching in recent years? Global warming predictions say snow lines will recede ever northward as global warming years go by. But it appears the snow line is heading south. Is that right?

  71. AndyW says:

    How come pips doesn’t pick up the huge area of low ice concentration to the north and west of Novosibirskiye Ostrova ?

    Andy

  72. wayne says:

    Darn, now that death spiral looks just like a tangled ball of Slinky.
    Never could straighten those out.
    Better to just deem it permanently damaged and send it to the trash!

  73. Amino Acids in Meteorites

    I’ve done a number of posts recently about record winter snow extent, which implies that the snow is falling further south. The reason being that the only direction the snow line can move is towards the south – because the areas closer to the pole are already covered.

  74. R. Gates says:

    Steve & Athony,

    An excellent presentation, and if the PIPS 2.0 data had any validity or accuracy I would almost believe it. Unfortunately, PIPS 2.0 was quite inaccurate with low fidelity and is no longer used by the Navy for any serious applications, and especially not to navigate their way through the Arctic. PIPS 3.0 has been on-line for many years and is assimilated into the HYCOM suite (HYBRID COORDINATE OCEAN MODEL)

    The PIPS 2.0 model had very low resolution and large errors. Unfortunately, the Much of the capabilities of the PIPS 3.0 model are classified, as you can understand how valuable that information could potentially be for military applications. With the planting of a flag on the bottom of the Arctic Ocean by Russia a few years back, and the vast untapped resources of the region, one can certainly understand. However, a general unclassified example of what 3.0 is capable of can be found here:

    http://www.oc.nps.edu/~pips3/pips.gif

    An unclassified presentation of the HYCOM suite of applications (including PIPS 3.0) can be found here:

    http://www.hycom.org/attachments/101_F.Bub.pdf

    In general though, a nicely done effort, but I think your data is suspect, and I think you should realize that the modeling done by PIOMAS is much closer to the more updated PIPS 3.0, as they both use CICE from Los Alamos, and thus, I would tend to stick to the projections of PIOMAS and the volume loss anomlay they project for the arctic over software that the Navy abandoned many years ago in PIPS 2.0…

  75. GeoFlynx says:

    stevengoddard says:
    May 29, 2010 at 4:02 pm
    Tom P

    This article covers 2008-2010 and I didn’t calculate any numbers prior to that. The death spiral period from 2008-2010 has seen a significant gain.

    Steve – The point is that you can not measure a long period trend by projecting between two short period points (cherry pick). Basically, you would have to filter out the high frequency noise to see the long period trend. The year 2007 was an unusual ice minimum and those that projected undue alarm and exaggerated consequences then are just as wrong as you are now. The Arctic ice is bound to recover somewhat from the 2007 low. This should be no surprise. I know you guys can do good science, but too often you let your prejudice get in the way. The science is what it is and a more accurate understanding will come if you just let it.

  76. 1DandyTroll says:

    Why do people assume that co2 always has to do with “green house effect”.

    And why do almost everyone assume that polar bears need the ice, what with they’re living on land and only uses the ice when its there to be used. Actually why do everyone who seems to assume that polar bears live on ice assumes that every polar bear out there are the smartest one around? After all there’s most likely a really good reason for why the stupid polar bears who swims for a hundred miles and drowns don’t survive. :p

  77. Tom P says:

    Steve,

    Your second bar chart is mislabelled then, with 2007 and 2009. Nevertheless you should calculate the values for 2007 and earlier to show that you can derive the same ice volumes as the Navy and hence validate your approach.

  78. R. Gates

    Thanks. If the PIPS 2 data is so bad, why are they still updating the maps every day? Where are the PIPS 3 maps? I’m perfectly happy to use them, and no doubt they will show approximately the same trend.

    Also, why hasn’t PIOMAS mentioned this increase on their web site?

  79. Jimbo says:

    I’ve commented recently that IF Arctic area, extent and volume go back to ‘normal’ the Warmists will move to the ‘warming’ Antarctic peninsula; and if that ‘warming’ turns to ‘normal’ they’ll head off to Death Valley with thermometer in hand.

    Each day my prediction comes closer. :o)

  80. 1DandyTroll says:

    Maybe this is off topic but I think not.

    Why do almost every greenie out there want to prohibit the poor people electricity?

    In pretty much every culture on this planet there’s a proverb about practicing what you preach right, but I wonder how many good and honest superbly greenies practice what they preach every time they argue, directly or indirectly, that poor have to make due with what they have rather than using oil, coal, let a alone nuclear.

    If European union didn’t have ready access to coal, oil, and nuclear power, how many would have died this last winter? And why did so many good and honest superbly greenies need “power” from coal, oil, and nuclear generation to survive?

    So if the western hubris suffering greenies can’t live without and as they preach why should not people of africa, china, india, south america, and et cetera not even have the ability to power themselves with oil, coal, and nuclear, even though they’re the only ones willing to pay for up to date filter and otherwise new and environmentally approved technology?

  81. STS2/SS Smith says:

    I was a Navy Sonar tech on a US submarine that has operated in the arctic and elsewhere so I am fully qualified to comment with a more expert opinion than pretty much anyone else here as I have taken these measurements and been there. So for some clarification on the Navies methodology in regards to it’s ice forcasts.
    1 the navy has more expereince and knowledge of the arctic ocean than the other scientists data has been hidden one example is the depth of the arctic ocean itself the civilian climate experts were off in thier espimates by a factor of 10 up until the late 90′s and the sciexces.
    2 all data is taken real measurement merged with historical records ans tracked meticulously,
    3 Depth is only measured where a ship aftually goes there are very large holes even in the Navies records,
    Much of the data is classified becuase it was recorded by submarines and information can only be relaeased in such a way that no submarine traack can be duplicated because officially submarines never do anything. Godd blog keep up the good work. and the one who said the Navy aren’t climate scientists I put my life on the line with the Navies data would you trust your life to the Climate scientists?

  82. barry says:

    I read calls of cherry-picking upthread, so I ran the ap for all the years from 2005. Lo and behold, 2008, pictorially, was the lowest ice volume of all them. But I couldn’t find data to crunch the numbers.

    That certainly seems like (visual) cherry-picking.

    Could the authors (or anyone else) direct me to a website that

    1) Gives observation instead of forecast values

    2) Has actual data for sea ice volume

    Thanks in advance.

    I’ll search for the same when I have time later tonight.

  83. Amino Acids in Meteorites says:

    GeoFlynx says:
    May 29, 2010 at 5:22 pm

    I think you missed the point of the post.

  84. Mike says:

    Jim Clarke says:
    May 29, 2010 at 2:50 pm:
    “So the Navy says the ice volume in the Arctic is up 25% in the last two years and the group whose very existence likely depends on the threat of global warming for most of their funding says the volume is way down. Hmmmm…who do you believe is the most accurate, the Navy trying to navigate the Arctic or the scientists trying to navigate Washington funding protocols?”

    1. The Navy gets its money from Washington too.

    2. Where did the Navy say ” ice volume in the Arctic is up 25% in the last two years”? Can you provided reference? Steve and Anthony don’t as a credible source. I want to see where the Navy said this. Also, a two year trend does not trump a 30 year trend.

    3. Do you have a thoughtful critic of of the Polar Center Center’s work? You can’t just say, “I do not like them.”

    http://psc.apl.washington.edu/ArcticSeaiceVolume/IceVolume.php

    I know A tried to say something to discredit them in an earlier post here, but all he could come up with was that he did not understand part of one graph.

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/05/28/does-piomass-verify/

    You are picking the sources that say what you want to believe. The credible scientists say the Arctic sea ice is declining and that this has multiple causes about which there is still debate. If AGW is some massive conspiracy, why do papers that assess possible non AGW causes of Arctic ice loss get published? They also say the Antarctic is gaining ice. Explain why they would lie about the Arctic and not about the Antarctic?

    Now you can find mangled press stories that exaggerate the evidence for or likely impacts of AGW. But there are also plenty of stories in the media that do the reverse. Journalists are not scientists. Go figure.

  85. Richard M says:

    I’m still waiting for a climate scientist to come forward and demonstrate that it isn’t the ocean current or geothermal induced Arctic warming that is responsible for the small increase in global temperatures. Cart/horse.

    In fact, you’d think with all those climate scientists out there producing worthless papers on things like micron sea levels rises, you’d have at least a couple looking at other possible scenarios. Of course, I guess there could be ones working on it that simply can’t get their work published.

  86. Richard M says:

    As for the claims of cherry picking … there is a good reason. The press has been playing out one press release after another about reduced volume of Arctic ice since the low extent in 2007. How does one respond to those claims without studying the years in question? Clearly, you can’t. However, this analysis shouldn’t be taken beyond that discussion or it does become cherry picking.

  87. Steve Goddard says:

    Barry,

    I thought a death spiral was continuously downwards……..

    Please describe the technique you envision for continuously monitoring ice thickness.

  88. Amino Acids in Meteorites says:

    stevengoddard says:
    May 29, 2010 at 5:19 pm

    I see what you are saying. But I think some people may think that because there was so much snow in places like Washington D.C. that snow is just deeper in some places and not covering ground farther south. So something like a blink map of the past 5 years or so showing the snow line going farther south would make it unmistakable.

  89. Ed says:

    It seems that the Arctic ice is, ahem, very “robust” :-)

  90. wayne says:

    STS2/SS Smith:

    Thank you so much for posting here, we know your information is accurate. You are in a class such as pre-80′s scientists where no data is trusted and it is a shame, yours and their measurements were accurate, to point, honest, and important, not a polital or environment statement. Well, welcome to the “skptical of modern science methods” camp, you’ll always find honest and true friends here.

  91. J. Bob says:

    Great Post
    Don’t tell John P. Reisman (OSS Foundation), over at RC. He thinks volume is decreasing.

  92. Phil. says:

    stevengoddard says:
    May 29, 2010 at 5:37 pm

    Also, why hasn’t PIOMAS mentioned this increase on their web site?

    Because it didn’t happen.

  93. EFS_Junior says:

    With all the logical fallacies the author throws at others, it’s not too surprising that the author engages in outright and blatent cherry picking of data.

    An equally and valid logical fallacy, put forth directly by the author himself.

    Second, it is important to realize that the changes in extent, area, and volume have there largest gradients during the months of May, June, and July.

    Third, this is a blog with a clear and present bias, that’s a fact, just like AGW blogs have a clear and present bias.

    Fourth, as with other methods of analysis typiclly presented in non-peer reviewed bloge, the author does not explain himself at all with respect to how the area calculations were made, total areas of coverage, etceteras. For examply, I’d like to see PDF’s and CDF’s, thank you very much.

    Fifth, given that 2007 was the current all time low in terms sea ice extent, area, and perhaps volume to date, leads to only one conclusion, cherry picking of a data set that in and of itself can not be independently verified.

    GIGO.

  94. Bill Illis says:

    This model and Steve and Anthony’s results seem much more realistic than the Piomas model (which has also been proven to have the worst predictive capability of any model available).

    The US Navy has the best ocean data and modelling. At stake are $2 billion submarines and $4.5 billion aircraft carriers.

    Have a look at what the Gulf Stream really looks like.

    http://www7320.nrlssc.navy.mil/global_nlom32/navo/GFSTRSST_nlomw12930doper.gif

    or what the La Nina ocean currents are really doing right now.

    http://www7320.nrlssc.navy.mil/GLBhycom1-12/navo/equpacsst_nowcast_anim30d.gif

  95. R. Gates says:

    stevengoddard says:
    May 29, 2010 at 5:37 pm
    R. Gates

    Thanks. If the PIPS 2 data is so bad, why are they still updating the maps every day? Where are the PIPS 3 maps? I’m perfectly happy to use them, and no doubt they will show approximately the same trend.

    Also, why hasn’t PIOMAS mentioned this increase on their web site?

    ________________

    Steve,

    As I said, PIPS 3.0 is quite active (if you go to page 33 on this pdf link you can see that):

    http://www.hycom.org/attachments/101_F.Bub.pdf

    It has been active since 2005, and updated since then even and that’s when PIPS 2.0 was mothballed. The most I can tell you is that PIPS 3.0 is part of a larger suite of products now used by the NAVY, and it’s exact features, and certainly any charts of sea ice volume and thickness derived from PIPS 3.0 are classified. These charts can be used, and are used, by ships and submarines for navigation under across the Arctic. With the increasing focus on the Arctic for resources, it is not surprizing that the NAVY would not release this data. You can go to this site:

    http://www.oc.nps.edu/~pips3/

    For a bit more information, but you’ll come to a dead end if you’re trying to get any actual charts. However, as I’ve been saying for some time, the same model information is used by PIOMAS and PIPS 3.0 known as CICE, (http://oceans11.lanl.gov/trac/CICE)

    PIOMAS will give you raw projected anomaly, but of course no maps, but both it and PIPS 3.0 have the same data. PIOMAS did in fact show some slight recovery or at least an uptick in the overall downtrend in sea ice volume in 2009-2009, but it wasn’t as dramatic as you and Anthony’s exercise would indicate, and that’s probably why it was not addressed– it didn’t exist.

    I don’t think PIOMAS is perfect, but because it is tied into CICE, and that model is getting better and better, and is certainly far better than PIPS 2.0, I tend to trust the model.

    We in the civilian sector will have to wait for CryoSat-2 to start putting out data later this year to get very accurate 3-D views of sea ice (and I would suspect that data will be incorporated into CICE on some level, even just for validation).

    Really though, I thought your presentation was excellent, and gave me much to think about. We’ve got a long summer of melt ahead, and it will be interesting to see how the melt does or doesn’t progress…

  96. Amino Acids in Meteorites says:

    Bill Illis
    May 29, 2010 at 8:52 pm

    Again, you have the coolest animations!!

  97. FergalR says:

    05,29,2006,11163438
    <
    05,29,2010,11170625

    Unless there's a rare downward correction to JAXA it looks like some will have to wait for the record to be broken until May 30th. 2060 perhaps.

  98. oakgeo says:

    EFS_Junior says: May 29, 2010 at 8:45 pm

    “Fifth, given that 2007 was the current all time low in terms sea ice extent, area, and perhaps volume to date…”

    Why is it a given, and who gave it? And what the heck is a “current all time low”? Do you mean since satellite measurements began ~30 years ago?

  99. Devil's Advocate says:

    If the extent and volume are both up, and the comparator shows that there’s ice everywhere how do you explain JAXA going from a 10 year high in early April to a 10 year low less than 2 months later — and this isn’t even supposed to be the time of fastest melt, and the temperatures are below normal as well. Huh?

  100. wayne says:

    Mike says:
    May 29, 2010 at 7:02 pm

    You are picking the sources that say what you want to believe.
    [...]
    Go figure.

    I went and figured. You are somewhat right Mike, about choosing data. You look at various sets of data and ask, who do I trust. The U.S. military so far is enough for me. They are one of the last entities I put complete trust in collecting and reporting data, knowing the caliper of most of its members. I use to trust in most science data without question but no longer, especially in this ‘environmentalist’ AGW arena. And you Mike, your questioning the military as being the distorters of data with your “credible scientists” being unquestionable just tell me my decisions are correct. Keep the words flowing Mike.

  101. Amino Acids in Meteorites says:

    EFS_Junior
    May 29, 2010 at 8:45 pm

    Hi EFS,

    Instead of the usual hackneyed barrage of propaganda that is so five years ago would you present data that shows North Pole ice is not increasing in volume?

  102. Amino Acids in Meteorites says:

    Devil’s Advocate says:
    May 29, 2010 at 9:43 pm

    Here’s the explanation:

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/05/27/shear-ice-decline/

    It was posted here 2 days ago. Are you new to this issue?

  103. Ron K says:

    Is the assumption being made that the melting is the only explanation for reducing ice volume in the Arctic?
    From my experience doing ice reconnaissanse in the Canadian arctic, albeit a long time ago, circulation appeared to be a factor as well. While the eastern part of Parry Channel (Lancaster Sound) would reliably be free of ice for one to two months a year. The western portion of the channel (west of Resolute) was much less likely to become ice free. This appeared to be due to the several small islands scattered across the channel just west of Resolute Bay. These appear to significantly obstructed eastern pack ice movement (the general circulation flow).

    In the Beaufort Sea, the Beaufort gyre tends to retain the sea ice over a multi year period, while the transpolar drift stream offers an exit for pack ice.
    So, the changes in ice volumes alre likely to be impacted by the complex interaction of the two circulation patterns. The question is how much?

    In the case of the 2008 vs 2010 data, the 2008 data shows the major ridging (ice well over 3 metres thick) on the “right” pushing against the tip of Canada, and of Greenland. The 2010 data shows the major ridging against the opposite side. This would suggest very different circulation patterns between the 2008 data and the 2009 data.

  104. barry says:

    Hello again, Steve.

    I thought a death spiral was continuously downwards……..

    Huh? Where did I say anything about death spirals? Are you talking to me or about someone else?

    I remember some ice scientist saying something like, “we could be seeing a death spiral”. I don’t think much of the comment – but I doubt the scientist envisioned a monotonous trajectory month-to-month. It’s a figure of speech, and it’s about a climate trend, not about weather, which is what your post is about. I’m interested in data and meaningful trends, not sound bytes. How about you?

    Please describe the technique you envision for continuously monitoring ice thickness.

    I’m sure you’re familiar with the methods and data sets utilized to estimate ice thickness. Are you asking me to speculate on alternative methods?

    I’m not sure what you’re trying to imply. Are you suggesting that ice volume data is significantly lacking? I see no such qualification in your post. If data is porous, then why doesn’t that caveat appear in the post? And what would that mean for the message therein? But let’s deal directly, rather than with innuendo.

    I’m interested in actual data, not modeling (on this subject). Do you have any? I’ll go searching when I’ve more than 10 minutes to sit down and bring what I find here.

    Considering the mistrust of models and the strong predilection for access to observational data, why is there no call out for such on this subject? The answer is obvious to me – when the message is favourable to opinion, the standards change. Let’s not fall for that one. And let’s not mistake daily, monthly, or interannual variability for climate trends. The popular press may make errors of this kind, but there is no merit to responding in kind – unless the aim is counter-propaganda rather than objective analysis.

    What is your motivation, if I may ask? Mine, for the record, is to sort the wheat from the chaff. I don’t need anyone to get on any bandwagon, just to get the facts straight.

  105. HR says:

    mack520 says:
    May 29, 2010 at 10:32 am

    Try Google scholar for “Polar Ice Prediction System”

    It seems to be well and truely published.

  106. savethesharks says:

    Pamela Gray says:
    May 29, 2010 at 2:38 pm
    The Ocean skin is not warmed further from the addition of AGHG’s, which constitute a very small fraction of natural GHG’s. Even water vapor can’t do it. Longwave infrared radiation does NOT like the barrier to water penetration that is known as surface tension. Even natural sources of GHG’s re-radiation cannot get LW past the thin surface tension skin to layers that could melt ice. In addition, the small bit of warming from LW is nearly immediately evaporated off. To wit: your backyard pool.

    You can do an experiment if you own a pool. Fill it with cold water. Let it sit in the Summer Sun on a clear day and measure temp change at different depths. You can measure heat penetration quite easily. If you don’t shake up the pool, you will notice layering. If you then give it a good mix, the surface will be cooler than it was under calm conditions. You are measuring shortwave radiation penetration. The properties of shortwave allow it to move through the water’s surface tension to amazing depth. The properties of longwave cannot do this.

    Another thing about your pool or hot tub. Water’s desire to evaporate when it is warm is greater than “eh hem” animal sex drive. This is why the pool you own, or the hot tub you have on your porch, comes with blankets to keep that warm water in there.

    If incoming Arctic currents are warmer, it is because the trade winds that blow at the equator calmed down, thus disallowing mixing between the warmer top layer and colder layers underneath it (as in your calm pool). This results in the current going into the Arctic to be warmer than usual. When the trade winds kick back up again, you get cooler currents (as in your agitated pool). AGHG has nothing whatsoever to do with ocean warming or cooling.

    ========================

    You can tell Pamela is a fine teacher. And I reposted her explanation again because it was so damn on the money and worth seeing again…in case you missed it the first time.

    Chris
    Norfolk, VA, USA

  107. HR says:

    Just to follow from above.

    PIPS has been published since the 1980′s.

    I can only find references to PIOMAS back to 2008.

    It seems PIPS has survived the rigours of public review for longer. I’m surprised given PIOMAS is newer that papers don’t make mention of the PIPS model or indicate how well the two models match or work.

  108. HR says:

    Something weird on the PIOMAS website.

    They published a paper in GRL using PIOMAS predicting the 2008 minima based on 2007 data.

    The paper predictings in the conclusion.

    “If 2008 has the same forcing conditions as
    2007, as represented by ensemble member 7, its summer ice
    extent would be reduced only slightly against September
    2007 (Figure 3g). Of course that would be another record
    low, but it would be nothing like summer 2007 when the ice
    extent plummeted dramatically.”

    http://psc.apl.washington.edu/zhang/Pubs/Zhang_etal2008GL033244.pdf

    This paper was submitted to GRL 10 January 2008

    On the website they have this

    “Latest Summary (updated on 8/1/2008)

    The September 2008 arctic sea ice extent is predicted to be 5.1 million square kilometers, significantly higher than September 2007 at 4.3 million square kilometers ”

    http://psc.apl.washington.edu/IDAO/seasonal_outlook.html

    Seems like PIOMAS can predict just about anything. It’s worrying they submitted a more dire prediction for publication.

  109. Gail Combs says:

    Mike says:
    May 29, 2010 at 11:19 am

    If you look back you will find a year where the ice volume is larger or smaller than today. Instead one could do science:

    http://psc.apl.washington.edu/ArcticSeaiceVolume/images/BPIOMASIceVolumeAnomalyCurrent.png

    http://psc.apl.washington.edu/ArcticSeaiceVolume/IceVolume.php
    ________________________________________________________________________
    After the major loss of Sea Ice extent in the summer of 2007 we heard “oh my gosh, it’s a death spiral, the arctic will soon be ICE free, we are all going to drown…”; or words to that effect from the Climate Alarmists and their tame media. Therefore it is entirely logical to look at ice volume after the winter of 2008 and compare it to today to see if the “death spiral” of sea ice is happening as prophesied. The answer is a resounding NO. The THICKNESS of the sea ice is recovering nicely and that is the key issue.

  110. ECE Georgia says:

    Steve Caryl

    • The chief cause of death for Polar Bears is bullets.
    • At one time, the chief cause of death for man in the arctic was Polar Bears. It still happens.

    My vote goes to you on this thread! My brain’s Nyquist calculator has totally lost the signal on this thread! But I’m still loving it!

    Fortunately I can look out my window (Computer) and see that the Arctic Ice is still there and increasing. The ‘official settled science’ models said it should be gone by now!

  111. Pamela Gray says:

    jcrabb, you would do yourself well by including why you think sea ice extent is falling. Increased air temp? Increased oceanic current temp? Winds blowing it out Fram Strait like it did in 07? Extent is a valuable piece of data but must be taken with other factors. Ice extent that is spread out from strong wind will certainly look good on paper but runs the risk of underestimating melt. Thick ice staying in place and being melted by the incoming Atlantic current and solar radiation looks bad on paper but runs the risk of overestimating melt.

    The opposing views will be tested this Summer and I think this is the place to keep up on the discussion. My opinion may turn out to be wrong. But at least I am involving some reasoning based on possible parameters at play. So add to the discussion. Your post is in need of science.

  112. Pamela Gray says:

    For those who believe that the Arctic is on a death spiral and have spoken of rotten ice and decreasing thickness as a measure of this, thanks for that early discussion. I know I frequently snorted when I read that word “rotten” ice. But I think differently about it now. It added a dimension that I should have been following, and learning about, all along. It is possible, indeed necessary, to learn from opposing views in order to get the science right.

  113. Sea Hunter says:

    If you truly wish to know if artic sea ice is being impacted by AGW, don’t look at it, look at the planet Mars. If the ice caps on Mars are growing (or shrinking) in step with Earths’ ice caps, then the argument that AGW is a cause of artic ice melt is not supportable. It would seem that the sun alone is the deciding factor. If on the other hand the Martian ice caps are not in step with Earths’ ice caps then there is some room for the argument of AGW. So far, from the polar ice cap pictures I have seen of Mars recently, AGW loses the argument, and ice cap expansion is solar dependent. However, others may come to a different conclusion.

  114. GeoFlynx says:

    GeoFlynx says:
    Your comment is awaiting moderation.

    May 29, 2010 at 5:22 pm
    stevengoddard says:
    May 29, 2010 at 4:02 pm
    Tom P

    This article covers 2008-2010 and I didn’t calculate any numbers prior to that. The death spiral period from 2008-2010 has seen a significant gain.

    Steve – The point is that you can not measure a long period trend by projecting between two short period points (cherry pick). Basically, you would have to filter out the high frequency noise to see the long period trend. The year 2007 was an unusual ice minimum and those that projected undue alarm and exaggerated consequences then are just as wrong as you are now. The Arctic ice is bound to recover somewhat from the 2007 low. This should be no surprise.

  115. GeoFlynx

    My understanding is that spiral only goes one direction, and that an ice free Arctic by 2013 would require significant acceleration of ice loss.

  116. R. Gates says:

    GeoFlynx said:

    “The year 2007 was an unusual ice minimum and those that projected undue alarm and exaggerated consequences then are just as wrong as you are now. The Arctic ice is bound to recover somewhat from the 2007 low. This should be no surprise.”

    _____________

    Yes, 2007 was an usual minimum based on the past three decades of data, but it is very hard to know beyond that how unusual in any accurate way. However, going forward, the test of global climate models is really in the longer term predictions they make, and the models would say that 2007 is a harbinger of things to come, sooner or later. We may not not see a new low this year for summer sea ice extent or we might, but we certainly ought to see a new low sometime in the next few years. The models would say it will be a case of a zig-zag pattern sloping downward over the next few decades until we see a summer minimum that is at zero sometime in the next 10 to 30 years. Here’s one future projection of how it might play out:

    http://psc.apl.washington.edu/zhang/IDAO/z_movie_heff_proj_summer.mpg

    So, yes, the arctic sea ice did recover a bit from the 2007 low in both 2008 and 2009, and might even in 2010 (but I’m not betting on that). I think the lower solar output in 2008-2009 combined with the La Nina helped the ice recover a bit in those seasons, but that’s all behind us now, and the sun is heading toward solar max in 2013, solar output is increasing, (http://www.climate4you.com/Sun.htm#Recent solar irradiance)
    the first few months of 2010 have been the warmest on instrument record, and arctic sea ice is running lower than 2007, 2008, and 2009 for the same date…but the real melt season is just ahead of us now, so we’ll see.

  117. Gneiss says:

    Steve Goddard writes, “I thought a death spiral was continuously downwards……..”

    If that was what he meant, he would have called it a “free fall.” Did anyone in the Arctic science community actually predict monotonic change?

  118. rbateman says:

    Alright. This is really getting out into left field on the “nobody knows anything for sure” viscious circle.

    Let’s have some fun for a change. We’ll superimpose the N. Hemisphere Sea Ice Anomaly from Cyrosphere Today on the corresponding S. Hemisphere Sea Ice Anomaly and see what the data say:

    http://www.robertb.darkhorizons.org/seaice.anomaly.Ant_arctic.jpg

    What’s this? Looks like the Arctic and the Antarctic are doing a dance.
    Might even make the final week on Dancing with the Stars. Nice footwork.
    Look folks, it doesn’t get any simpler or straightforward as the picture above.
    The Earth just bounced the CAGW sponsored Sea Ice Loss Car into the wall in turn #2010 at Daytona.

  119. Nukemann says:

    You may have identified a very Inconvenient Truth.

  120. rbateman says:

    Sea Hunter says:
    May 30, 2010 at 8:20 am

    You are very correct. The test of whether Earth is warming anthropogenica katastrophē is to compare it with the other planets. Mars will do just fine. Now all we need is data on Mars Polar Caps from 1979-2010 and see what’s up with that.

  121. Gneiss

    How do you go from five million km2 in 2007 to zero km2 in 2013, without being fairly monotonic?

  122. AndyW says:

    R.Gates said

    “An excellent presentation, and if the PIPS 2.0 data had any validity or accuracy I would almost believe it. Unfortunately, PIPS 2.0 was quite inaccurate with low fidelity and is no longer used by the Navy for any serious applications, and especially not to navigate their way through the Arctic. PIPS 3.0 has been on-line for many years and is assimilated into the HYCOM suite (HYBRID COORDINATE OCEAN MODEL)

    The PIPS 2.0 model had very low resolution and large errors.”

    Now I don’t agree with the comment “any validity or accuracy” at least without backup which fails to be supplied, but R.Gates does seem to have a point on low resolution when the PIPs forecast for tomorrow seems to be saying 3m thickness compared to AMSR-E which shows clear water in parts, perhaps due to shear.

    http://www.iup.physik.uni-bremen.de:8084/amsr/arctic_AMSRE_nic.png

    one of them’s got to be wrong.

    Actually two of them have to be wrong, because the Canadian ice service show clear water as well for where PIPS shows ice

    http://ice-glaces.ec.gc.ca/Ice_Can/CMMBCTCA.gif

    Andy

  123. Gneiss says:

    Steven Goddard wrote, in response to my question whether anyone in the Arctic community had actually predicted monotonic change,
    “How do you go from five million km2 in 2007 to zero km2 in 2013, without being fairly monotonic?”

    Slide 8 of this 2008 presentation by Maslowski also shows such behavior (wobbling up and down but with a downward trend in mean), together with the “2013″ date based on a projection of the post-1997 trend.
    http://198.7.238.201/cnws/wardept/documents/State%20of%20Arctic%20Sea%20Ice%20(NPS).pdf

    Maslowski probably wishes he’d shaded in some uncertainty bands around that date, as he seems more comfortable with “before 2020″ as a guess.

  124. AndyW

    The PIPS forecast shows holes in the ice in the same places as AMSR-E
    http://www7320.nrlssc.navy.mil/pips2/ithi.html
    Looks to me like you are just spreading FUD

  125. Gneiss

    Do you support the idea of an ice free Arctic by 2020?

  126. Gneiss says:

    Steven Goddard wrote, “Do you support the idea of an ice free Arctic by 2020?”

    I’m no Arctic ice expert, but I’ve listened to many people who are. Consensus seems to be that the IPCC projection of late-summer ice almost entirely gone in the late 21st century was too conservative, perhaps way too conservative.

  127. Gneiss

    90 years ago was right after WWI. Making predictions 90 years into the future is well … pointless.

  128. rbateman says:

    If the Arctic is Ice Free in September by 2020, then the Antarctic Sea Ice will expand to cut off the flow between the Pacific and Atlantic:
    http://www.robertb.darkhorizons.org/seaice.anomaly.Ant_arctic.jpg
    The poles are locked in a dance, while the alarmists are locked in a trance.

  129. Mattias says:

    I guess we have to wait and sea if the estimate of increse in thickness is correct. The amount of ice left in the end of summer will probably give us a clue. :)

  130. GFW says:

    Maslowski’s 2013 was a major outlier and simply not representative of mainstream climate science. The cautious modelers talk about 2050 at the absolute earliest for ice-free summers. My guess, based on PIOMAS, is there will be a summer minimum of 2.5 M km2 by 2020 and 0.5 M km2 by 2030. That latter can be called effectively ice-free.

  131. Smokey says:

    rbateman says:
    May 30, 2010 at 2:27,

    Great graphic. Mind if I swipe it for my collection?

    GeoFlynx,

    Do you think they could have stretched the y-axis a little more? Say, zero to ±5,000 cu km top & bottom, instead of zero – 10,000? It doesn’t seem quite steep enough to scare every last person on Earth. [/sarc]

    Sorry, false alarm. You can relax now.

  132. GeoFlynx,

    I have seen that PIOMAS graph, and it appears to be way off the mark.
    http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2010/05/pips_anim.gif

    I have measured the current volume, and it is higher than the same date in 2007, 2008 and 2009.

  133. rbateman says:

    Smokey says:
    May 30, 2010 at 5:45 pm
    rbateman says:
    May 30, 2010 at 2:27,

    Great graphic. Mind if I swipe it for my collection?

    Why certainly. Here’s another one:
    http://www.robertb.darkhorizons.org/seaice.area.ANT_arctic.jpg
    I’d like to see Steve or Willis put the data cruncher to work on where the average Di-Polar Sea Ice Area and Anomaly has been.
    Seems rather narrow-minded to focus solely on the Arctic as it is but one Pole.

  134. rbateman says:

    GeoFlynx says:
    May 30, 2010 at 5:32 pm

    With comment: BPIOMAS is a computer model generated WAG based on data that, so far, has not nose dived.
    The credibility of such models is already been found wanting, as the goalpost of predicted disaster never materializes.
    In software we called it VaporWare, and it sunk many companies unable to deliver the goods.
    It now sinks AGW, as it has NOT delivered on any prediction, and therefore the product that Gore/Hansen/Mann have
    attempted to sell is resoundly rejected.
    Nobody wants to buy VaporWare, no matter how powerful a supercomputer it was generated on.
    It’s AGW Marketing Divisions worst nightmare.
    The product sucks.

  135. Phil. says:

    stevengoddard says:
    May 30, 2010 at 6:00 pm
    GeoFlynx,
    I have measured the current volume, and it is higher than the same date in 2007, 2008 and 2009.

    Really, and exactly how did you do that?

  136. Cameron says:

    I am still surprised by the attempts to either proove or disproove CAGW by referrence to melting ice. Non of this has any relevence to the central question.

    What real evidence is there that clearly shows that a small increase in the concentration of a trace atmospheric gas (CO2) is a major driver of Global Warming that will ultimately destroy the earth? It is a belief in this hypothesis that requires us to all retreat to a stone age level of civilisation. So for all of you CAGW cultists. Please present the evidence for CO2 caused CAGW. In effect Put up or shut up.

  137. Tom P says:

    Steve,

    “I have measured the current volume, and it is higher than the same date in 2007, 2008 and 2009.”

    How do your values compare to the numbers derived by the PIPS team for May 2007 and 2008 here?

    http://www.nrl.navy.mil/content_images/09_Ocean_Posey.pdf

  138. Phil,

    You should read the article before commenting.

  139. rbateman says:

    http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2010/may/HQ_10-122_MRO_On_Ice_Cap.html

    NASA Spacecraft Penetrates Mysteries Of Martian Ice Cap PASADENA, Calif. — Data from NASA’s Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter (MRO) have helped scientists solve a pair of mysteries dating back four decades and provided new information about climate change on the Red Planet.

    The Shallow Radar, or SHARAD, instrument aboard MRO revealed subsurface geology allowing scientists to reconstruct the formation of a large chasm and a series of spiral troughs on the northern ice cap of Mars. The findings appear in two papers in the May 27 issue of the journal Nature.
    Data from Mars now points to both the canyon and spiral troughs being created and shaped primarily by wind. Rather than being cut into existing ice very recently, the features formed over millions of years as the ice sheet grew. By influencing wind patterns, the shape of underlying, older ice controlled where and how the features grew.

    So. Mars has it’s spiral N. Hem. Ice pattern, and Earth has the Arctic Beaufort Gyre.
    How interesting.
    NASA at it’s finest. Worth every last penny, and then some.

  140. rbateman says:

    Phil. says:
    May 30, 2010 at 7:00 pm

    Steve measured the same way Greenwich Royal Observatory measured umbra, penumbra and faculae for 100 years, and how Debrecen Observatory, Hungary measured umbra, penumbra and faculae on the Sun. They count the unit areas and strengths.
    It’s really quite elementary these days, what with digitized images having pixel intensities.
    Good solid science stuff.
    I highly reccomend it. Layman’s spot count is based on the very same principle.

  141. I measured the volume using the same mathematical technique which anyone would have to do – i.e. integrating thickness across area.

  142. John Marshall says:

    Mack 520 thinks that the models are science and we should ignore the data. That is the problem, we have relied on the models and ignored data. If the model does not agree with the data, chuck the model!
    Next to be thrown out is the theory of greenhouse gasses!

  143. phlogiston says:

    AndyW says:
    May 30, 2010 at 12:08 pm
    R.Gates said

    “An excellent presentation, and if the PIPS 2.0 data had any validity or accuracy I would almost believe it. Unfortunately, PIPS 2.0 was quite inaccurate with low fidelity and is no longer used by the Navy for any serious applications …”

    I work in imaging technology and quantitative analysis. The effect of spatial resolution on accuracy of measurements is not always what you expect. With lower spatial resolution you lose ability to spatially resolve structures, but the ability to detect differences between samples analysed over an extensive volume (rather than at a single location only), or the ability to detect changes with time in a sample, is surprisingly well preserved with lower (or artificially degraded) resolution. Overall changes in volume and architecture of objects both in 2D and 3D remain detectable when ability to resolve individual structural components is degraded, to a surprising extent. Some studies even indicate increased precision of trend / difference analysis with lower resolution. This might be due to signal to noise and stability issues with higher resolution.

    I’m not arguing that low is better than high resolution, but that if we assume from R Gates’ comments that PIPS 3 has a higher spatial resolution than PIPS 2, this does not mean that the ability of PIPS 2 to detect changes year on year in ice amount is necessarily significantly different to that of a higher-res PIPS 3.

  144. R. Gates says:

    phlogiston says:
    May 31, 2010 at 7:49 am

    “I’m not arguing that low is better than high resolution, but that if we assume from R Gates’ comments that PIPS 3 has a higher spatial resolution than PIPS 2, this does not mean that the ability of PIPS 2 to detect changes year on year in ice amount is necessarily significantly different to that of a higher-res PIPS 3.”

    ___________________

    Actually I agree with this, and I think Steve and Anthony did an excellent job with the data they had, but the data used, PIPS 2.0 has a stated error of up to 25%, and as other posted pointed out, even large open areas of known open water were shown
    as having ice in the PIPS 2.o data– and this is just one of the reasons that the NAVY needed to go to PIPS 3.0 and the HYCOM suite. Furthermore, to suggest that the NAVY was putting hundreds of million of dollars in expensive hardware and the lives of personnel at risk based on data that has up to 25% error rates is rediculous, especially to suggest that that was a reason that it should be trusted over PIOMAS, when PIOMAS is more sophisticated (i.e. CICE based) model.

    PIPS 3.0 and the HYCOM suite (and other related tools) are what the Navy uses, and they are based on CICE from Los Alamos, and the full operational details and capabilities of these newer models are classified, as the Arctic is becoming an increasingly important strategic area, and will continue to grow as such as the ice continues to recede from year to year. The the Superpowers are planning for an ice free Arctic :

    http://www.navy.mil/search/display.asp?story_id=48533

    http://books.sipri.org/files/insight/SIPRIInsight1002.pdf

    And they have a lot more sophisticated models than PIPS 2.0 to base their projections on, and PIOMAS is more closely allied with those models than is PIPS 2.0. Having said all that, I don’t think Steve and Anthony wasted their time in the analysis, and they might even be right, the point is, with a 25% known inaccuracy in PIPS 2.0, to state with any confidence that sea ice volume has increased by 25% is not quite science.

    Finally, here’s a great link to watch the ice break up in the Bering Strait in detail:

    http://ice-map.appspot.com/?map=Arc&sat=ter&lvl=7&lat=67.940426&lon=-168.991006&yir=2010&day=149

    You can used the calendar on the top right hand side to update the image each day.

  145. rbateman says:

    R. Gates says:
    May 31, 2010 at 8:55 am

    The superpowers may be planning for an Ice-Free Arctic as a one-time event, a continual event or a non-event. They may also be planning on using the Arctic as a training ground, for a Little Ice Age event that makes a lot of places, currently traversable, blocked to surface shipping.
    The military doesn’t just plan for one contingency, they plan for ALL contingencies.
    There’s no room for a computer-generated Dyle Plan.

  146. Tom P says:

    Steve,

    I’ve tried a similar approach to quantify ice volume from these images, but I used Wu quantization to unambiguously map the pixels to the thickness key. I get average ice thicknesses similar to yours, but which are much lower than those reported by either PIOMAS or PIPS.

    I believe the problem is that the PIPS maps do not show ice coverage. Hence much open water is contributing to the average and pulling down the calculated thicknesses. Subtract the area of open water and a more realistic ice thickness should be obtained.

    I therefore think deriving volumes from these images is highly problematic. Unless you can incorporate the appropriate coverage data, I think these simple calculations from what is an incomplete dataset are of dubious merit.

  147. harrywr2 says:

    R.Gates
    “The the Superpowers are planning for an ice free Arctic :”

    I’ll quote the good Admiral from the article.
    http://www.navy.mil/search/display.asp?story_id=48533
    “What I mean by the ‘when’ question is ‘when do you need to spend money?’” he explained. “When do you need to invest in communications? In infrastructure? When do the policy experts come up with specific missions? And when are we going to have a lot of water to work with?”

    According to Titley, the complexities of the Arctic environment make it difficult to determine that timeline. “There’s a lot of variability, it is very complex, and that is why the predictions you see have pretty wide confidence intervals,” Titley noted.”

    Russia is developing a contingency plan to knock the Apophis asteroid off course in 2029.
    http://cbs13.com/technology/russia.rocket.asteroid.2.1397103.html

    NASA predicts the odds of the Apophis asteroid hitting earth at 1 in 45,000.
    http://neo.jpl.nasa.gov/apophis/

    Just because someone prepares a contingency plan for a ‘what if’ doesn’t have any bearing on the odds of the ‘what if’ actually occurring.
    In the 1920′s the US military drew up plans for the invasion of Canada. 90 Years later it still hasn’t happened.

  148. R. Gates says:

    harrywr2 says:
    May 31, 2010 at 10:20 am
    R.Gates

    “The the Superpowers are planning for an ice free Arctic :”

    “In the 1920′s the US military drew up plans for the invasion of Canada. 90 Years later it still hasn’t happened.”

    ____________________

    You can do your own research, and draw your own conclusions about how serious the worlds dominant powers are about taking full advantage of an ice free arctic. There are hundreds of excellent resources on the internet for that. My point was about the validity of the old PIPS 2.0 model data versus far more sophisticated and accurate data that the Navy uses for actual navigation etc. that is based on the latest iterations of CICE which is the same sorts of modeling used by PIOMAS. In short, the PIOMAS model and PIPS 3.0/HYCOM agree, though the PIOMAS only gives the raw data and the PIPS 3.0/HYCOM will show actual very accurate mapping as well and that would be what the Navy would proabably use for navigational aid, versus a model that they stopped using in 2005.

  149. Roger Knights says:

    barry says:
    May 29, 2010 at 11:59 am

    There is more ice cover in 2008. There is less 5 metre ice in 2010. There is less 2 metre ice in 2010.

    On the same day in 2007, the year of record melt, there is similar ice cover to 27 May 2010, but there is much more thick ice in 2007. In 2010, the thickest ice apparent in 2007 is nearly all gone.

    I wouldn’t be too confident about placing bets.
    …………

    jcrabb says:
    May 29, 2010 at 2:39 pm

    Arctic sea ice extent has hit below 2007 levels, one wonders what happened to the return? Does this blog have any scientific consistency or is it just engaged in a perpetual search for an escape from reality?

    If you are confident that the current low-extent level will persist, you can bet against people (like me) who think the chances are 43% that it won’t, and that 2010 will be icier in Sept. than 2007. Here’s where: https://www.intrade.com

  150. Roger Knights says:

    Oops– I forgot to outdent that last paragraph.

  151. Mike says:

    Gail Combs said (May 30, 2010 at 3:50 am): ”After the major loss of Sea Ice extent in the summer of 2007 we heard “oh my gosh, it’s a death spiral, the arctic will soon be ICE free, we are all going to drown…”; or words to that effect from the Climate Alarmists and their tame media. Therefore it is entirely logical to look at ice volume after the winter of 2008 and compare it to today to see if the “death spiral” of sea ice is happening as prophesied. The answer is a resounding NO. The THICKNESS of the sea ice is recovering nicely and that is the key issue.”

    You invented a quote. Can you produce actual quotes to that effect from leading scientists? I’m skeptical, but maybe you can. If you can then it would be fair to criticize them whether or not the trend has continued. A one year low is not a basis for projecting long term trends. It is likely you can produce such statements from some activists or befuddled reporters. They then certainly should be criticized.

    More importantly, you are arguing that it is only fair to be as illogical as those you disagree with. That’s a dangerous course. There are crazy people on both sides of any issue. Instead let’s look at what experienced researchers have to say. From my reading it seems that Arctic sea ice is in a decline. This has many causes about which there is still debate among researches. AGW is likely among these and the loss of sea ice will likely add to GW by reducing the amount of light reflected out to space. There will likely be some negative environmental effects and some positive ones. Rapid change is hard to adapt too, so my guess is the negatives will out weigh the positives.

    Transforming Earth’s climate seems like a high risk experiment. Finding ways to reduce CO2 emissions seems prudent.

  152. Mike says:

    @stevengoddard said (May 29, 2010 at 9:49 pm ): “Mike,
    What part of this don’t you understand?
    http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2010/05/pips_anim.gif”

    It is an animation, not an analysis. Also, it is two data points two years apart chosen for effect – you are cherry picking. This is not enough to draw a conclusion. Indeed even graphs showing longer term declines do not prove the decline will continue. That conclusion is based on understanding – as best we can – the dynamics of energy flow in the region. The best models we have show the decline will likely continue and accelerate. Is this certain? No! But it is the best information we have at present.

    @wayne said (May 29, 2010 at 10:05 pm) : “You are somewhat right Mike, about choosing data. You look at various sets of data and ask, who do I trust. The U.S. military so far is enough for me. They are one of the last entities I put complete trust in collecting and reporting data, knowing the caliper of most of its members. I use to trust in most science data without question but no longer, especially in this ‘environmentalist’ AGW arena. And you Mike, your questioning the military as being the distorters of data with your “credible scientists” being unquestionable just tell me my decisions are correct. Keep the words flowing Mike.”

    I do not have complete trust in the military (where are those Iarqi WMD?) or in scientists! If you once did, then no wonder you are disillusioned. In this case the Navy has not that I know of released a statement that Arctic sea ice volume is increasing. All we have are two imagine files picked out by A & S who clearly want to show AGW is false by any means necessary.

    I’ll repeat what I just wrote above: “From my reading it seems that Arctic sea ice is in a decline. This has many causes about which there is still debate among researches. AGW is likely among these and the loss of sea ice will likely add to GW by reducing the amount of light reflected out to space. There will likely be some negative environmental effects and some positive ones. Rapid change is hard to adapt too, so my guess is the negatives will out weigh the positives.
    Transforming Earth’s climate seems like a high risk experiment. Finding ways to reduce CO2 emissions seems prudent.”

  153. Djon says:

    Pardon me if this was addressed and I failed to spot it but if the PIPS data is so good, why divide it into only five bins for the volume calculations when the original data apparently comes in 25cm steps from 0.50 to 5.00 meters?

  154. phlogiston says:

    R Gates says:
    May 31, 2010 at 8:55 am

    “Actually I agree with this, and I think Steve and Anthony did an excellent job with the data they had, but the data used, PIPS 2.0 has a stated error of up to 25%, and as other posted pointed out, even large open areas of known open water were shown
    as having ice …

    What does the 25% error refer to? I would guess some source of uncertainty as to the nature of ice at a particular location (ice-not ice, thickness, etc.). However does this translate to a global error – for an arbitary example, if PIPS calculated a volume of 2,000,000 km3 of ice, would it be equally probable that there was either 1,600,000 or 2, 500,000 km3? No – the uncertainty would presumably be much less. Also systematic errors “come out in the wash” when you compare like with like measurements such as in a time series.

    I’m not too familiar with this material – how long have PIPS 2 and 3 data been collected? A longer time series for PIPS 2 would be an advantage (although not a reason not to upgrade to a higher resolution PIPS 3).

  155. kadaka (KD Knoebel) says:

    How does this stuff keep getting circulated?

    Excerpted from: R. Gates on May 31, 2010 at 8:55 am

    PIPS 3.0 and the HYCOM suite (and other related tools) are what the Navy uses, and they are based on CICE from Los Alamos, and the full operational details and capabilities of these newer models are classified, as the Arctic is becoming an increasingly important strategic area, and will continue to grow as such as the ice continues to recede from year to year.

    Excerpted from: R. Gates on May 29, 2010 at 9:14 pm

    As I said, PIPS 3.0 is quite active (if you go to page 33 on this pdf link you can see that):

    http://www.hycom.org/attachments/101_F.Bub.pdf

    It has been active since 2005, and updated since then even and that’s when PIPS 2.0 was mothballed. The most I can tell you is that PIPS 3.0 is part of a larger suite of products now used by the NAVY, and it’s exact features, and certainly any charts of sea ice volume and thickness derived from PIPS 3.0 are classified. These charts can be used, and are used, by ships and submarines for navigation under across the Arctic. With the increasing focus on the Arctic for resources, it is not surprizing that the NAVY would not release this data. You can go to this site:

    http://www.oc.nps.edu/~pips3/

    For a bit more information, but you’ll come to a dead end if you’re trying to get any actual charts. (…)

    The PIPS site: http://www7320.nrlssc.navy.mil/pips2/index.html

    There it states:

    The Polar Ice Prediction System (PIPS 2.0) is the operational model run by the Naval Oceanographic Office (NAVO) for sea ice forecasting.

    Not “a” operational model, “the” operational model.

    There is a clearly marked link there, “Info on the future PIPS 3.0″, which yields the following pop-up:

    http://www7320.nrlssc.navy.mil/pips2/info3.html

    Polar Ice Prediction System 3.0

    The most recent upgrade to the Navy’s ice prediction capability is the development of the next generation forecast system: PIPS 3.0. Improvements to this new forecast system include higher horizontal resolution, a more sophisticated ocean model, improved data assimilation and perhaps most important, an improved sea ice model, based on the Los Alamos CICE model. This sea ice model will include a Lagrangian formulation for calculating a multi-category ice thickness distribution, a snow layer, a brine pocket parameterization, non-linear profiles of temperature and salinity (Bitz and Lipscomb, 1999). The CICE model is presently being tested by NRL with Navy Atmospheric forcing from the Navy Operational Global Atmospheric Prediction System (NOGAPS). This model will be coupled to Navy Operational global ocean models. These improvements are geared towards providing better forecasts of formation and lead orientation. The PIPS 3.0 is presently going through its final development.

    Repeated for emphasis: “The PIPS 3.0 is presently going through its final development.”

    From page 33 of that pdf link, which actually yields a powerpoint presentation, yes there is a chart which has been purported to show operational status. From 2005 to 2011. Also from the presentation:

    Pg 31:

    SWAN is being transitioned to NAVOCEANO during CY2005
    DELFT3D, incorporating SWAN, coastal flow, and surf modules, starts transition CY2006

    Pg 28:

    PCTIDES undergoing OPEVAL in CY2005.
    – A proposed upgrade is planned by CY2007.

    And pg 15:

    HYCOM will begin to run on MSRC in an R&D model in CY2005 & a 1/12-degree global HYCOM will begin OPEVAL testing in CY2007.

    Checking the Properties of the pdf file, we find the following for “Created” and “Modified”: Mon 12 Dec 2005 10:40:57 AM EST

    So the great pdf PROOF that PIPS 3.0 is operational and PIPS 2.0 has been mothballed, to all appearances looks like an old forward-looking presentation of “works in progress” done in 2005, perhaps even 2004.

    And what about that PIPS 3.0 site? Every page I look at on the site has a “Last Modified” date in 2003. This page on “Ice model Improvements” has a link for info on the “Ice Motion Assimilation Project,” which throws a “403: Forbidden” error. There are some images from testing runs available, that look somewhat old. Frankly, I don’t think anything has been done to that “official” site for ages.

    So, what seems likely?

    A. There is a conspiracy by the US Navy to lie to the public about PIPS 3.0 being operational and deployed since 2005, which was accidentally revealed on page 33 of a declassified powerpoint presentation after they altered the file dates and modified much text to make it appear to be a rather old document, and to hide the truth that PIPS 2.0 was mothballed in 2005 the US Navy continues to run a site that purports to show 2.0 data but apparently is either taking 3.0 results and making them look like they are from 2.0, or they are still devoting considerable resources to running the “mothballed” 2.0 to generate public consumption data for disinformation purposes that they themselves do not use.

    B. PIPS 3.0, which will use the same model information as PIOMAS, ran into serious development issues, hasn’t been deployed, and 2.0 is the system currently in use.

    Which, dear reader, do you think it is?

  156. R. Gates says:

    kadaka (KD Knoebel) says:
    May 31, 2010 at 3:01 pm
    “So, what seems likely?

    A. There is a conspiracy by the US Navy to lie to the public about PIPS 3.0 being operational and deployed since 2005, which was accidentally revealed on page 33 of a declassified powerpoint presentation after they altered the file dates and modified much text to make it appear to be a rather old document, and to hide the truth that PIPS 2.0 was mothballed in 2005 the US Navy continues to run a site that purports to show 2.0 data but apparently is either taking 3.0 results and making them look like they are from 2.0, or they are still devoting considerable resources to running the “mothballed” 2.0 to generate public consumption data for disinformation purposes that they themselves do not use.

    B. PIPS 3.0, which will use the same model information as PIOMAS, ran into serious development issues, hasn’t been deployed, and 2.0 is the system currently in use.

    Which, dear reader, do you think it is?

    _______________

    Well, dear reader, before you decide which of these three falses choices you’ve been given, consider a bit more information. Here’s a link for a training manual on PIPS 3.0 from 2008:

    http://www.stormingmedia.us/16/1608/A160805.html

    Odd, don’t you think, that there would be a training manual for something that some would say the Navy never developed.

    Also, check out page 13 of this presentation:

    http://www.hycom.org/attachments/082_079_OS2008_metzger.pdf

    I would just say this, dear reader, consider the extent that some people will go to in order to try and deny the obvious. The Navy moved on to better technology and left PIPS 2.0 in dustbin, for the Los Alamos CICE model, as PIOMAS did. No conspiracy, just the evolution of technology…

  157. kadaka (KD Knoebel) says:

    From: R. Gates on May 31, 2010 at 10:48 pm

    Odd, don’t you think, that there would be a training manual for something that some would say the Navy never developed.

    Really? Who said that? PIPS 3.0 is being developed, or at least it was, that is not in dispute. But the evidence points to it still being in the development stage and never yet deployed. I already knew there was a training manual for sale, which isn’t surprising.

    So, we’ll see what we can find out about the manual. First up is the seller, which says in their FAQ:

    Storming Media is a private federal government information reseller. We sell unclassified U.S. federal government reports.

    So, you have claimed PIPS 3.0 is operational and its output is classified, it’s all hush-hush secret and people aren’t supposed to know it exists. Therefore they have released an unclassified document on setting up and running PIPS 3.0 proving it exists. Right, sure…

    What does the abstract say?

    Currently, the domain includes the Irminger, Labrador, North, and Baltic Seas on the Atlantic side and the Bering Sea, Sea of Japan, and the Sea of Okhotsk on the Pacific.

    “Currently” sounds like a work in progress to me.

    What does the PIPS 3.0 site say?

    At this point the domain includes the Labrador, Irminger, North, and Baltic Seas on the Atlantic side and the Bering Sea, Sea of Okhotsk and the Sea of Japan on the Pacific side.

    Yup, looks like a match. So this training manual corresponds to the period of development found at the official PIPS 3.0 site. So this training manual corresponds to something still in development.

    Also, check out page 13 of this presentation:

    http://www.hycom.org/attachments/082_079_OS2008_metzger.pdf

    I would just say this, dear reader, consider the extent that some people will go to in order to try and deny the obvious. (…)

    Yeah, I’ve noticed.

    Go to the HYCOM site, search for “pips” and you find what looks like two copies of the same powerpoint presentation, and that’s it for site. So what is on slide page 13?

    Couple HYCOM/NCODA with a sea ice (CICE) model developed by Los Alamos
    (…)
    * In Navy parlance: Polar Ice Prediction System (PIPS)
    * Assimilate SSMI ice concentration in PIPS

    Yup, another to-do list. Go look at the next three pages as well as all of 13. Looks clear to me, they’re working to improve HYCOM by coupling it to a sea ice model, namely CICE. In this one presentation, they say in Navy terminology it’d be called PIPS.

    And that’s it. There is no version number for PIPS given. Search the HYCOM site, get one presentation where they say CICE is known as PIPS in Navy-speak. And never again. Apparently there’s a misconception going around that the Navy is using PIPS 3.0 which is CICE. For this single presentation, all that is found on the HYCOM site, I see nothing to suggest this wasn’t a one-time unintentional mistake.

    So, R. Gates is saying PIPS 2.0 is mothballed, left in the dustbin, not being used by the US Navy since 2005 when PIPS 3.0 went operational. His support is some mentions that really only show 3.0 exists, somewhere, out there in the world. This goes against an active and operational PIPS 2.0 site and the US Navy saying 3.0 is in final development, not deployed, as well as other evidence.

    At which point I conclude R. Gates is either just doing this for fun, throwing up this ever-weaker “evidence” to amuse himself as he watches people scurry to show how his false “evidence” is false, or he really is a conspiracy nut theorist.

    To: R. Gates
    Re: PIPS 3.0
    Please immediately write to the US Navy, asking them to stop wasting their resources by maintaining a fake PIPS 2.0 site and spreading disinformation to disavow that PIPS 3.0 is the system they have been using since 2005. Provide your overwhelming evidence. Also send a copy to the President, as he is very concerned with wasting taxpayer money, and copies to your elected US Congressional representatives as such massive waste and fraud clearly deserves a full investigation in both houses. If you truly believe that you have discovered the truth, you owe it to the truth to do what is right.

    God bless!

  158. Brendon says:

    Is this real data, or forecast data?

    And why not show a longer time frame?

  159. JSRagman says:

    Dear MACK520 – Let me see if I have this right > the Navy are not qualified climate scientists and the empirical evidence says the ice extent is growing, but the evidence must be wrong because it disagrees with “peer reviewed” MODELS??

  160. jhenry says:

    For another take on Arctic ice, see
    http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/
    updated daily according to the site. I see Admiral Yin’s comment on the Law of the Sea has not gone unnoticed by Russia (irrelevant to the US as a non-ratifier). China already has the largest icebreaker in the world in the Arctic with another to come. Russia is building more nuclear powered ice breakers. Things are heating up. Still Russia expects to support China’s trans arctic shipping plans. It will be interesting to see if the US remains indifferent to all this in ACAP’s September meeting.

  161. Joe says:

    Thank you for helping to prove that global warming is a myth. Mack520 who said “The models contradict this. The Navy are not qualified Climate Scientists. Will you believe peer reviewed models or will you deny science?” is a typical brainwashed idiot at best, and an environmental communist supporter at worst. I am disgusted with the environmentalists and their frantic global warming scare, which does nothing other than support the move to communism. The best way to symbolize the environmental movement is to take the communist flag with the hammer and sickle and replace the color red with green. The environmental movement is the new form of communism; and those who deny this have not studied the movement and its roots in depth. Environmentalists will not be satisfied until they have taken away all of our freedoms and placed us back in caveman times. If we went back to riding around in horses and stagecoaches they would attack us for the manure our horses leave on the ground and attribute it to global warming. Furthermore, if we resorted back to caveman times they would attack us for using fire, claiming it could burn down the forests. There is no way to satisfy environmentalists. They are in fact mental, and ironically the word mental is in the word evvironMENTAList.

    Keep up the good work !

  162. jhenry says:

    Joe referred to communism four times. That’s fitting in view of developments. Russia is run by unrepentant communists and China is still communist. China is now increasing funding for Arctic research. China is betting on trans Arctic shipping to Europe – short, cheap and pirate free. Russia with its 18 ice breakers will help them (but without Law of the Sea meddling). We have one 10 year old ice breaker plus two ancient ice breakers ready for retirement but we have modern submarines. Since Arctic ice is growing, they could be wasting their efforts. My bet is that China’s Law of the Sea ploy will fail and ACAP (without China) will decide policy – but only if we get an ice free Arctic.

  163. Gilbert says:

    Monckton mentions the increase in Arctic ice in his seminars.
    Check this link to find out what he says, there are ten parts and I can’t remember which part he says it so watch all the parts as it’s all very interesting.

    http://www.youtube.com/user/johnpabraham#p/u/9/QpOrjaWlC_E

    There are full citations so that you can check all the facts for yourself.

  164. Matt S says:

    OK, I went and got some blog entries from a climate modeler.

    First off, the earlier estimates of ice thinkness were wrong. They confused multi-year ice with thick ice. I don’t know if the charts used reflect the correction to that error.

    Second, increase *coverage* of ice is a prediction of warming, not a contradiction.

    Third, if you look at a longer term trend the extent goes up and down, but the trend is down.

    And, finally, the prediction is that sea ice will be gone by 2035.

  165. ELFINSONG says:

    If your post had any validity then my mind would be put to rest .
    However If the navy were so sure of the concepts that would support your theory of increasing ice then this article on the navy contradicts your theory

    http://www.canada.com/Health/navy+plots+Arctic+push/2278324/story.html

  166. Christian K says:

    All the arguments are just a moot point. We are a part of nature and if we are causing AGW, so be it. The planet will deal with it just fine. The only point of all the AGW BS is for the globalists to gain greater control of us by taxing us into extinction to “save the planet”. And for what? So polar bears can roam the planet free of human interference?

  167. ELFINSONG says:

    Man seperated himself from nature hundreds if not thousand s of years ago.
    We can not claim a moral stand by trying to say we are a part of nature. We are not.
    Conservatives are afraid of the boogeyman of higher taxes yet they would have our planet destroyed in the name of keeping their treasures.
    This is so illogical as to be laughable.
    So you have no place to live and no place to spend the worthless paper and metals you have gathered about you in the greedy rendition of Armageddon… So what is the point of your existence?
    Conservatives fool the fundamentalist Christians into backing them when they are all about destroying Creation.
    Ask yourself: What would be the opinion of the Creator for us systematically destroying what He has wrought?
    The tendency to inject fear of taxes is a little old and worn.
    Let’s fear rather God’s wrath.

  168. Matt S says:

    Christian K says: “All the arguments are just a moot point. We are a part of nature and if we are causing AGW, so be it. The planet will deal with it just fine.”

    Yes, the planet will deal with it just fine. Humans not so much.

  169. F. Sissler says:

    This article is a wonderful example of junk science.

    First and foremost. Two Years. TWO YEARS. That’s all this study even pretends to cover. An event that is occurring over several decades and centuries is bound to have blips and glitches in it, easily of a two year duration. One of the things the climate change ignorers never seem to fathom is that things don’t always happen in a straight, unidirectional way. Show me something over two decades, and maybe I’ll pay attention. This study is one step away from saying “uhhh, jeez it were awful cold last month. Can’t be no global warmin’. Yuck yuck yuck”.

    The link to the navy ICEX 2009 sure doesn’t make the claims this paper does. Moreover, the “data” is a forecast–I see no convincing evidence of “real data” that this article boasts about.

    The irony of the Bacon quote is priceless. These authors and their cheerleaders in the comments knew that global climate change was a “hoax” the moment Rush told them it was. I, on the other hand, really did start as a skeptic and became convinced by the real science out there (not this kind of meaningless drivel). I’d bet not one cheerleader on this site even knows enough about the debate to be able to say what property of carbon dioxide makes it a greenhouse gas. If you don’t know even the fundamentals, you’re just following the right-wing crowd. Step in line, give up any ability to think critically, or even think, and lurch zombie like in formation. Fox News will win the battle for you–no need to actually come up with anything compelling.

  170. Smokey says:

    F. Sissler says:

    I’d bet not one cheerleader on this site even knows enough about the debate to be able to say what property of carbon dioxide makes it a greenhouse gas. If you don’t know even the fundamentals, you’re just following the right-wing crowd. Step in line, give up any ability to think critically, or even think, and lurch zombie like in formation. Fox News will win the battle for you–no need to actually come up with anything compelling.

    You would be betting wrong, because you know less than nothing; what you believe you know is wrong. Where did you come from? One of those small alarmist echo chambers? Of course. All polemic, and nothing to back up what you say. Even though you’re a noob, and late to the party because this thread has been dormant for two days. Here, I’ll help you get up to speed, for your own benefit:

    First, this isn’t a Left/Right issue, except to the extent the insane Left makes it one. No matter what time span is written about here, people like you would complain. And FYI, I like many others here do not watch or listen to either Fox or Limbaugh. I get my information right here, and you would be much better informed if you did, too.

    Read the archives. The properties of CO2 have been constantly investigated and discussed here in minute detail. Reading the archives for a couple of hours a day would get you up to speed within a few months. Then you wouldn’t have to fall back on your ad hominems that take the place of rational debate.

    You say, “Show me something over two decades, and maybe I’ll pay attention.” You probably won’t pay attention, but here is a thirty year set of graphs showing that the Arctic is a local climate region, not a global indicator.

    And here is the past three years of Arctic June ice cover. Show us exactly where it’s declining. Be specific. Show the locations. I’ll wait.

    Finally, here is the current global ice extent. As we can see, it is trending higher, and it is now above its 30-year average. None of this is a ‘forecast.’ It’s the way things are in the real world.

    True believers in catastrophic AGW rely on bluster, because the facts contradict their beliefs. But the [verifiable] fact is that what we’re currently seeing in the Arctic has happened repeatedly in the past; there is nothing happening now that exceeds historical parameters. And the Antarctic is going the opposite direction, so CO2 can not be the cause. The question concerns global warming, see?

    Natural climate variability explains everything we’re observing. Nothing unusual is occurring. Nothing. The climate is normal. But if you feel the need to be frightened… then carry on.

  171. Jike says:

    Smokey

    Are you discussing climate, or weather?

    Sorry, but the greenhouse property of CO2 is no longer even debated. This has been experimentally demonstrated by Tyndall et al as far back as the late 1870′s. Have you considered that maybe the “facts” you’ve learned from this one very biased website just may have been twisted, misrepresented, with conclusions specious and misleading or in the worst case, plain wrong? This is, after all, the internet!

    An analysis of actively published and peer-reviewed science indicates with high repetition the conclusion that anthropogenic climate change is real and happening and these conclusions are largely supported by empirical evidence.

    Why, indeed, hasn’t this “chilling” data been heralded as the end of anthropogenic climate change? Because it isn’t, of course.

  172. RR Kampen says:

    R. Gates at 6:18 am: good wrap-up of the situation.

    I would like to add one more observation for that time series. In the last couple of years the graph has a different character, showing much wilder anomaly changes than before, making it get a much more ragged appearance. This is indicative of ‘catastrophe’ (mathematical concept). It happens when some phenomenon is subject to threshold behaviour and is near that threshold.

    In the case of Arctic ice, the threshold to watch for is in thickness over large areas when it gets to about twee feet. At this point, the ice breaks up, letting the sun do its job on the bare sea surface and accelerating the melting process vastly. The two dramatic drops of 2007 are exemplaric for this. A comparable thing can happen any moment now in view of the already extremely thin ice over Canadian of the Arctic sea.

    The combination of melt and currents this year actually suggests that absolutely all of the multiyear ice, at least the ice older than two years, will disappear by early autumn. A new first for the region.

  173. Peter Keen says:

    Observation shows that climate last Winter was very cold across Asia and Europe and other countries like Mexico. This was oposite to predictions of climate scientists. This Winter was said by the MET office to be 2C hotter than the last one. Again, conditions are opposite to those predicted by the “experts”. Global warming is promoted by governments as a legitimate reason for tax increases. “Experts” depend on these governments for project and research funding and find themselves having to advance warming as fact when its only theory and now theory that is proving false.

  174. David says:

    Interesting finding but only a small part of the whole story. There is enough evidence that globally the ice is shrinking. Apart from this, a time span of only 2 years doesn’t tell anything about a long-term climate change.

  175. ELFINSONG says:

    In my part of America we are seeing a city sinking and oceam levels rising.
    According to naysayers this shouldn’t be happening.
    Maybe we are putting more boats in the water and so the levels are rising?
    There are island nations that are in a losing battle to save their homes.

    There is definitive reasoning that supports the global warming “theory”.

  176. Christopher says:

    Late to this discussion, but this article comes up in web searches for ice volume.

    This analysis seems contrary to the
    PIOMAS data
    . Anthony, any comments on whether the differences might be explained by either methodology, or differences in source data?

Comments are closed.