Guest post by Steven Goddard
The WUWT Arctic Ice Thickness Survey has been conducted from the comfort of a warm living room over the last half hour, without sponsors, excessive CO2 emissions or hypothermia. The data is collected from the US military web site http://imb.crrel.usace.army.mil. All of the active military buoys show significant thickening ice over the past six months to a year, as seen below.
Location of Catlin team relative to buoy 2008D and the North Pole
Buoy 2008B has thickened by more than half a metre since last autumn, and is more than 3 metres thick.
2008C also shows thickening by more than half a metre since last autumn, and is nearly 4 metres thick.
2008D has not been updated since early February, but showed thickening and is 3.5 metres thick. It is close to the Catlin team position.
2007J has thickened more than half a metre, and is nearly 4 metres thick.
2006C has thickened by nearly a full metre over the past year, and is more than 3 metres thick
UPDATE: The military site also has graphs which are supposed to show depth. It appears that many of these are broken, which is why I used the more reliable temperature graphs. The depth at which the ice drops below the freezing point of seawater (-2C) is of course the bottom of the ice. You can’t have water in a liquid state below it’s freezing point.
Some of the buoys have reliable depth data, and they correspond closely to the temperature data – for example 2007J which shows 400cm for both.
http://imb.crrel.usace.army.mil/buoy_plots/ice2007J.gif
http://imbcrrel.usace.army.mil/buoy_plots/2007J.gif
Steven,
“The 2006C depth graph is clearly broken. Look at the discontinuity around October.”
That single October point reflects the difficulty of determining the bottom interface during the summer melt when the ice has a very similar temperature to the underlying sea, as I mentioned earlier. There is no reason to question the other data. The current ice thickness is more than 1 m thinner than the corresponding thickness in April 2007.
But as I have repeatedly said, look at what CRREL have published about their data as a whole in January:
“The Arctic sea ice cover is in decline. The areal extent of the ice cover has been decreasing for the past few decades at an accelerating rate. Evidence also points to a decrease in sea ice thickness and a reduction in the amount of thicker perennial sea ice. A general global warming trend has made the ice cover more vulnerable to natural fluctuations in atmospheric and oceanic forcing.”
http://arjournals.annualreviews.org/doi/abs/10.1146/annurev.marine.010908.163805
Why do you think you are better able to analyse the data than the CRREL Army scientists who actually are running these buoys?
looks like all ice back to normal or above including BTW NORTH POLE
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/global.daily.ice.area.withtrend.jpg
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/current.365.jpg
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/current.365.south.jpg
The persistent SH anomaly is becoming a bit obvious. Me thinks “tale of the tape” on cryosphere is likely to be removed soon as well as Will’s comment on Daily Tech “normal ice levels” being not true LOL
Steven Goddard (15:01:19) :
Craig,
It is interesting to me how some AGW promoters want to be insulated from inspection by the public, and at the same time promote policy which has major consequences to the public.
It doesn’t work that way in a democracy. Everyone is credentialed in this debate.
============
Steven, I was asking from the point of science and the reason I read WUWT. In my case, I am a mere lay person. I try to get a sense of the expetise of those like yourself that write columns here. I did not mean to put you on the spot asking about your credentials.
Steven Goddard (16:04:25) :
Tom P,
Good try.
The 2006C depth graph is clearly broken. Look at the discontinuity around October.
http://imb.crrel.usace.army.mil/buoy_plots/ice2006C.gif
Goddard, you’re a piece of work, when I pointed out the problems with that buoy this is what happened.
Steven Goddard (19:37:26) :
There is a major difference in Arctic ice behavior this year compared to 2007. This military buoy shows ice thickness of 1.6 meters and increasing rapidly. In 2007 the minimum summer ice thickness was the same (1.1m,) but thickness didn’t reach 1.6 meters until the end of January.
Phil. “Trouble is that buoy depth meter is malfunctioning.”
REPLY: How do you know that? Where is that referenced from?- Anthony
“A couple of reasons: that meter has been behaving strangely for a couple of years, at the maximum the signal flattened out last year at ~1.1, even the noise was truncated, this year it flattened in the same way at exactly the same value. Earlier this fall that buoy stopped updating for ~1 month and then recently started down in a noise free straight line (similar behaviour to that seen in some buoys on rapidly melting ice in the Beaufort sea”
Steven Goddard (11:40:00) :
Phil,
The ice thickness data is consistent with the temperature/depth data. Ice temperatures are colder than last year. There is no indication that the buoy is misbehaving. Ice is growing in all three dimensions must faster than last year.
Stop the FUD. You are just generating needless CO2 and other noxious greenhouse gases.
So it appears you’ll take any position as long as it suits your agenda.
Hmmm – short-lived buoys, broken measurements, measurements open to individual interpretation.
It seems to me what is required is a few people to go out onto the ice to take some REAL measurements.
It would be good if these could be done continuously using radar, but if that fails they could at least take an occasional manual measurement.
Would of course need to do this every few years!
Bill
John F. Hultquist (12:40:15) :
… Thinking historically now, would you want a normal or average temperature, say for Paris, to include all of the years of the Little Ice Age and the 50 years after its recovery. Anyone not over 75 would find the normal reported temperature a bit strange. By using the most recent 30 years, a person of about 50 would sense the average as being consistent with her or his own experience.
I think this is the sort of reasoning that went into the 30-year rule. It was done before all the AGW crap so I don’t think the intention was sinister, even though we interpret it as such in 2009. …
Point taken (and well made, BTW). I’ll restate my concern to reflect it: Using a 30 year average to present current climatic conditions to non-scientists is reasonable and appropriate. Using the same average to “prove” a theory about long term climate change in scientific discussion is fraudulent.
Steven,
“All of the active buoys show increasing thickness across their period of record.”
The CRREL website is functioning better: the history of currently functioning buoy 2006C is here:
http://imb.crrel.usace.army.mil/2006Csum.htm
I’ve captured the reduction in the ice thickness here:
http://img517.imageshack.us/img517/7008/2006chistory.png
Do you still maintain your original statement above?
LarryOldtimer (13:23:12)
Very good points indeed. I work sometimes in education as a mathematics consultant at a tech school. I NEVER see them talk about significant digits as such, even though they want the student to know all about measurement! It would seem that some basic understanding of what you can and cannot know from your data is in order.
Steven,
Looking more closely at the data from 2006C it is clear why your use of the temperature profiles for the bottom interface is incapable of deriving a correct ice thickness.
During each melt cycle as ice is lost from the top surface, the ice rises with respect to the water, raising the buoy with it. Subsequent freezing at the bottom interface means lower temperature sensors are embedded in the ice so the bottom interface is lower on the buoy. This does not mean the ice is thicker, just that the buoy is rising and therefore the top interface needs also to be measured to determine the overall ice thickness. It is the difference between the two that gives the actual ice thickness. This is what is used by CRREL and what I presented from the start as inconsistent with your analysis using just the bottom interface.
The 2006C profile:
http://img517.imageshack.us/img517/7008/2006chistory.png
is therefore not indicating that the ice is dropping below sea level, but that the buoy, which is embedded in the ice, is rising with respect to sea level during each melt season. It does show that the ice thinned in 2007 and has not subsequently recovered.
For the sake of scientific accuracy, please update your original article accordingly.
Phil.
Nice try again. The buoy malfunctioned in November – after our discussion. At the time, the depth data graph closely matched the temperature data graph.
This article was about the temperature data.
Steven Goddard (20:18:34) :
Phil.
Nice try again. The buoy malfunctioned in November – after our discussion. At the time, the depth data graph closely matched the temperature data graph.
Good grief man, give it up you’re just digging yourself in deeper!
Our conversation was in November and the problem was obvious by the beginning of October!
Yesterday you said:”The 2006C depth graph is clearly broken. Look at the discontinuity around October“.
The same ‘discontinuity’ I pointed out to you in the 3/11 post and which you vehemently denied.
http://imb.crrel.usace.army.mil/buoy_plots/ice2006C.gif
I believe that both interfaces are visible on those graphs – air to ice and ice to water. I did not spend too much time plotting them, but it is clear that top did not move much, while bottom interface had went down significantly, which means that thickness did increase.
In addition, I quote from http://imb.crrel.usace.army.mil/2006Csum.htm that you linked to in your previous massage –
The bottom melting would not cause buoys “raising” like you suggest.
“ceashex [crashex],
This looks like about 400cm to me.
http://imb.crrel.usace.army.mil/buoy_plots/2007J.gif.”
The bottom of the ice is 400cm from the top of the bouy. The temperature profile indicates that about 110 cm of the bouy is in the air above the snow. The total snow/ice depth is 400-110=290cm. Roughly 3 meters, not 4.
My only point has been to make sure everyone is reading the temperature data plots correctly. You need older temperature plot data to make any comparison of the change in ice depth from one year to another.
‘…the greatest intellectual blunder since the Vatican insisted that the solar system revolved around the earth.’
Would that be the Vatican under Pope Ptolomey?
2006C from theplot above:
ice depth @2008/10/09 = 100cm to 170cm = 70cm (no snow?)
ice depth @2009/04/06 = 115cm to 310cm = 195 cm (+10cm snow?)
So going from 2008 polar ice minimum to 2009 maximum (approx) the ice depth increased by 125cm
This is min to max and, as crashex (05:26:28) says, does in no way compare year to year variation.
The same site used for the buoy data in the header has this page – note the ice thickness map has no increase anywhere!
bill
ralph ellis (05:29:21) :
If the thickness of Arctic ice were really the Global problem that these people make out, the US navy could do the measurements in a couple of weeks – from below.
To surface a sub in the Arctic, the boat needs to measure the thickness of the ice (presumably by sonar, or perhaps radar). If they have this kind of capacity, they could traverse much of the entire Arctic sea in a few weeks and accurately measure the entire damn area
http://www.damocles-eu.org/research/A_large_pool_of_freshwater_building_up_in_the_Arctic.shtml
Recent observations of Arctic Ocean outflow in the Fram Strait suggest that freshwater is piling up in the Arctic Ocean. A change in wind direction could release the largest amount of freshwater through Fram Strait ever recorded.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Younger_Dryas
Causes of the Younger Dryas
The prevailing theory holds that the Younger Dryas was caused by a significant reduction or shutdown of the North Atlantic thermohaline circulation in response to a sudden influx of fresh water from Lake Agassiz and deglaciation in North America.[12] The global climate would then have become locked into the new state until freezing removed the fresh water “lid” from the north Atlantic Ocean. This theory does not explain why South America cooled first.
Why doesn’t the navy publish their thickness records if they have them – I have not seen recent results?
Bill
Jack Green (05:36:56) :
This is how the Catlin group should have conducted their study.
http://psc.apl.washington.edu/northpole/2003Reports.html
!!!!!!!!hang about!!!!!!!!! from the log
5/7 – Helo Ops – Twin Otter Hydro at station 5, problems with winch gearbox/motor, but successfully complete station. Repair winch at night.
5/8 – Helo Ops – Twin Otter Hydro Station 6 – Twin Otter makes afternoon evening flight to deploy fuel cache
5/9 – Helo departs – Twin Otter CTD -Hydro at Station 1 (North Pole) and Station 2 (60 miles south). Stops at fuel cache coming and going, arrive home at midnight, pack all night.
5/10- Finish pallet load and fly to Edmonton via Eureka, Resolute, Cambridge Bay, Yellowknife
So these people have forced the pilots of kenn borek air (and others) to fly where they should not, well into the melt season. Despicable!
Bill
Smokey (06:37:40) :
Who are all those contributors that ‘continually wish death/loss of limbs?’ [emphasis on “continually.”]
the comment referred to contributors plural. ie. there are continual references made by many contributors not just one contributor.
OK here are some of the nasty comments. Cannot be bothered looking for others (one I remember hoped they would loose their legs)
& some may have been pulled or snipped.
mojo (07:19:03) :
Even people who do foolish things do not deserve to die.
Since when? Ever hear the phrase “Hold my beer and watch THIS!” ?
Mike Lorrey (00:00:29) :
While I would like to hope they come off the ice alive and in one piece, frankly given the damage they and their kind are doing for the sake of an agenda, I don’t.
Jack (04:29:43) :
Stupid is as stupid does.
Or in this case, ~snip~ idiots. At least they didn’t force a well prepared guide to die with them.
Ethan (23:46:43) :
I hope they don’t give up. Imagine the headlines…People trying to prove the Pole is warming up er freeze to death! Rumours of AGW proved to be codswallop.
Oh yes ..well worth the cost. Freeze you [snip]s!
April E. Coggins (21:23:39) :
I hate the part of myself that looks forward to the demise of stupidity
philincalifornia (20:16:05) :
Don’t die Pen. It’s not worth it. If you do, the Guardian, the inbred pseudoscientist Prince, and the BBC will deny and/or cover up that you and your ill-fated expedition ever existed.
But we won’t, ha ha ha ha
Robert Wood (15:29:13) :
These people expected to be warm in the Arctic winter????
Cold-bloodilly, I say, let them live or die; it’s their choice, I don’t care for these worthless nitwits. They are fools; allow Darwin his due.
Adolfo Giurfa (11:05:30) :
If some of these guys dies, I am sure his or her death would be utilized by “The Prophet” himself for his cause.
Steve in SC (10:33:07) :
They are idiots pure and simple.
Perhaps they will reap the benefits of their folly.
My sympathies are extremely limited.
Bill
The army’s approach appears to be so much better thought out and systematic as compared to what the Catlin folks are doing. From the link “The Plan” ( http://imb.crrel.usace.army.mil/ourplan.htm ) on the website:
“collocating IMBs with oceanic and atmospheric measurement systems provides a complete profile of atmosphere, ice and upper ocean properties. Such an integrated set of observations is needed to be able to understand the environmental changes that are occurring. Data from these instruments can be used to validate and calibrate remote sensing tools, including satellite-based observations of ice thickness, snow depth measurements, and onset dates of melt and freezeup. They can also be assimilated into numerical models to provide a context for the data and a predictive capability.”
MikeF,
“The bottom melting would not cause buoys “raising” like you suggest.”
It is the top rather than the bottom melting that causes the ice to rise, by a factor of eight as per the well-known ratio of how much of an iceberg is below the surface. Hence there is absolutely no contradiction between having a large amount of bottom melt and the ice rising as there has indeed been substantial melt of the top surface.
“I did not spend too much time plotting them, but it is clear that top did not move much, while bottom interface had went down significantly, which means that thickness did increase.”
Well, CRREL have taken the trouble:
http://img517.imageshack.us/img517/7008/2006chistory.png
and totally contradict your statement that apparently you can’t be bothered to prove!
In fact looking at this data and reading across horizontally, it is evident that even though the buoy has remained frozen in for longer than any other, no ice prior to the 2007 melt season has survived.
http://nsidc.org/noaa/moored_uls/IPS_tromso.pdf
Upward looking moored sonar bouys. Interesting and from here:
http://nsidc.org/noaa/moored_uls/
there is/are a lot of hard data out there. Are the satellite folks calibrating their work with the buoy information? This would be a reality check on their predictions.
Phil,
Give it a rest. The thickness data matched the temperature data until the November reading, when it broke upwards. We had that discussion in October.
So why did you think the thickness data was broken in October, and then try to present it as valid on this thread? Arctic ice has been getting thicker and more extensive since the 2007 minimum. Hate to spoil your party.
Steven,
What is currently wrong with the data from buoy 2007C, apart from the fact that it flatly contradicts your assertion that the CRREL measurements indicate the Arctic ice has been thickening?
http://img22.imageshack.us/img22/5204/ice2006c.gif
Steven Goddard (09:19:52) :
Phil,
Give it a rest. The thickness data matched the temperature data until the November reading, when it broke upwards. We had that discussion in October.
The conversation was on 3/11/2008 by which time the anomaly in the behavior had been apparent for 2 months.
So why did you think the thickness data was broken in October, and then try to present it as valid on this thread?
I didn’t! You argued that it was valid then and now it suits you to take the opposite line and got caught.
Arctic ice has been getting thicker and more extensive since the 2007 minimum. Hate to spoil your party.
Three strikes in such a short post, that’s a lot even for you. You’re wrong about the ice, in fact a contact in Resolute tells me that there’s extensive thinner ice around there, ~50cm thinner.
“What is currently wrong with the data from buoy 2007C, apart from the fact that it flatly contradicts your assertion that the CRREL measurements indicate the Arctic ice has been thickening?
http://img22.imageshack.us/img22/5204/ice2006c.gif”
A little confused with this. You say 2007C and post a 2006C plot.
If you look at the 2006C temp plot for comparison, it’s clear this depth plot has errors. The 10/08 thicknes was 0.5 m, much smaller than what’s on the depth trace. Note the erratic change in late 08.
The 2006C temp plot now shows the orange squares for 4/08. So a comparison of the 4/08 data at 1.8 m vs. the 4/09 data at 2.3 m demonstrates a 0.5m increase in thickness at that bouy. Ultimately, that was Mr. Goddard’s point from the post.