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
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Neil,
Earlier in the Catlin expedition they were on first year ice.
Last week they reported they were now on “much thicker multi-year ice.”
Clearly the military has joined the legions of duplicitous neo-con shills and lackeys of big oil by publishing actual real data that has not been massaged by the required statistical manipulations used by NASA climate “science” under Dr. James Hansen and NOAA.
This is OT, but appropriate for WUWT readers. The CBS TV station in Boston, Mass has an article that questions AGW on their website. Mish Michaels, on-air weather reporter, tells us about Dr. Soon, sunspots, and climate. I do not know if it was broadcast. See wbztv.com/curious/solar.min.sunrise.2.979838.html
“For example, from 1645 to 1715 there were no sunspots and it was a very, very cold period for our planet. Most call it the “Little Ice Age,” said Dr. Soon. “Based on my research, I tend to be in support of a very, very strong role by the Sun’s energy input as a climate driver. If you were to ask me about the role of CO2, I would say its very, very small,” he added.
““The drilling experiments I’m doing are showing the ice to be between 1.5 and 2 metres thick”, he told Independent Television News. “Scientists say that means it will not last the summer melt”.”
Wow, ground breaking research that! Let’s look at last year’s numbers! Arctic sea ice max = 14.5 million sq. km., sea ice min = 5.0 million sq. km. Looks like its standard practice for 2/3 of the ice to melt!
Move along! Nothing to report here! (Standard with alarmist claims!)
Here’s some bunk from the LA Times about AGW…
What will global warming look like? Scientists point to Australia
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-climate-change-australia9-2009apr09,0,65585.story?track=rss
Of course, they fail to mention that the entire recorded history of Australia is beset with floods and drought and the current situation is nothing new or unprecedented. They even go so far as to say this:
With few skeptics among them, Australians appear to be coming to an awakening: Adapt to a rapidly shifting climate, and soon.
I wonder if this is why Kevin Rudd has had such a difficult time trying to pass crippling cap and tax legislation.
Mark.
I have long thought that the polar ice is like a thermostat.
The Earth warms and the polar sea ice recedes creating additional cooling.
The Earth cools and the polar sea ice increases allowing warming.
An oscillation between warming & cooling ensues.
The time periods are long enough for the young to forget what their elders have taught them, that is where the cooling & warming scares come from.
DaveE.
This actually made me LOL…Steven, it looks like you’ve been rebuked by NASA!
Aerosols May Drive a Significant Portion of Arctic Warming
http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/warming_aerosols.html
So, if the ice is getting thicker but the Arctic is warming, what physical phenomenon can explain this? I guess we could ask the Catlin folks how warm it is up there in the Arctic!
Henry Galt:
“The good guys lost. Everybody knows. Sorry.”
Hope not this time, however the good hearted WUWT team will surely make an expedition to find the remains of the Gwrs. believers (not of course their most obnoxious and conveniently isolated by fat leaders) which by then will be covered by at least one mile thick ice.
Wait for it…. I expect many buoy sensor drift malfunctions.
Amazing! This would be funny if it weren’t sooo pathetic!
Steven,
I agree that in winter the interface is clear from the temperature profile. In summer though it is far from obvious. Although none of your posted profiles stretch back to maximum melt, the earliest profiles often show no clear discontinuity. In fact the CRREL thickness data seems to have difficulties measuring the maximum melt as can be seen from the 2006C plot:
http://img22.imageshack.us/img22/5204/ice2006c.gif
We would expect all of the Arctic ice to have thickened over the last six months just due to seasonal changes. The thickness profiles posted by CRREL show the most more complete record, though their website is rather unreliable, I agree. And it is from their complete dataset that CRREL have drawn the conclusions that the Arctic ice has been receding and thinning.
All my posts got published together! I don’t know what happened there.
The reason the ice is getting thicker over the last six months is because of the winter cold. The only buoy which showed a full year’s temperature data is 2006C. That one shows a significant increase in thickness, but also has drifted closer to the pole where it is colder.
The really interesting thing will be what happens during the summer and next winter.
Anthony,
Thanks for responding to my email – I can see what happened and fully accept it had nothing to do with Steven- I apologise for blaming Steven rather than the spam filter!
There’s probably another one lodged down there as I write…
In order for ice to go to 9m deep, it has to start at ZERO and build up thickness from there. If next summer follows the trend, and the fact that colder water is now flowing up there, the buildup will continue for years to come.
To assume that new ice will always completely melt during summer is a very bold prediction.
An icecube will melt more slowly in the fridge than outside. After the same time, if I put the ice back in the freezer, the one that was in the fridge will freeze much faster, and thicker for also an equal amount of time.
Thanks Steve, great post.
Mark, keep hatchin’ that little paper of yours.
From this recent satellite photo this team should be crossing lots of fissures, pressure ridges, and cracks in the ice on their way towards the pole. Notice the numerous cracks from the moving sea ice. It’s not just one sheet of ice that one would imagine.
http://www.weatheroffice.gc.ca/data/satellite/hrpt_dfo_ir_100.jpg
Steven Goddard and anyone else who might know:
Here is the extent of the ice at about minimum area for 2007 and 2008.
http://igloo.atmos.uiuc.edu/cgi-bin/test/print.sh?fm=09&fd=15&fy=2007&sm=09&sd=15&sy=2008
Could someone explain how the Caitlin expedition found all the fresh ice to drill when it would appear that they are on 1+ year ice their whole route??
JAN (08:31:05) :
It seems all buoys record ice thickness growth of 0.5 to 1.0 m since nov/dec 2008.
Except for the ones not mentioned which melted during that period!
2008D is mentioned as being nearest to the Catlin position, that;s where it was in February and hasn’t given any meaningful data this year.
Note that only one of those surviving buoys was initially placed on first year ice, most of the buoys, including the ones that melted, were sited on multiyear ice.
Also the buoys aren’t where they were when the ice was thinner, for example 2006C is at 85.409 N,70.930 W now, a year ago it was at 81.107 N,151.852 W. 2007F wasn’t so lucky a year ago it was at 77.976 N,135.005 W but didn’t make through the winter.
But I suppose that is what you would expect during the cold winter season. For buoy 2006C there is also data from april 2008 showing an increase for the last 12 months of about 0.7 m. No indication whatsoever that ice thickness is reduced
OK kuhnkat I can explain it to you. It’s because the Catlin expedition is here with Al Gore working on their next years plans to dog sled to the south pole.
http://www.accommodationnear.com/beach/bali.htm
Of course I’m being silly.
I understand that one of the motivations for the Catlin “explorers” is a post-expedition book deal. This is your big opportunity, Mr. Goddard!
I suggest the title “Triumph of The Climate Nerds” and a leader stating, “The untold story of how a computer nerd, while sipping a class of Sherry, deftly plucked the holy grail of “Arctic Sea Ice Thickness” from the shivering hands of a well financed band of manly men and women who were crudely digging for the prize.”
Would someone please explain to me which physical miracle leads to the fact that older ice is more resistant to melting than some younger one? Is it also true that water, which stayed longer in the liquid phase doesn’t freeze as fast as just melted one…
Here’s a quote on the Catlin expedition from the BBC’s David Shukman
“The expedition’s other research tasks include drilling through the ice by hand, on average four times a day.
With 102 holes drilled so far, hundreds of measurements have been made of ice thickness and snow cover over the 243km covered so far.
The drillings have revealed a typical ice thickness of between 1.5 – 2 metres which is far thinner than a previous generation of explorers encountered.
wonder if he’ll care to elaborate on whom these explorers from a previous Generation were
That ”knick” at -2 degrees is certainly the ice/water interface. Water is an excellent heat conductor while ice is a fairly good insulator, hence the knickpoint. However not everything above that knick is ice. The thermistor strings mostly stick up a bit into the air. This is the part at the top with almost constant temperature. Below this is a thin layer with a very steep thermal gradient. This is snow which is an excellent insulator. So it is only the distance between the two knicks that is actually ice. However 2008C seems to be all in ice, so there unly a minimum thickness is obtainable. It should be noted that this measurement method is only possible in winter. In summer air temperatures are close to zero, so there is essentially no thermal gradient, and hardly any knickpoints.
A couple of more points that need clarifying. Arctic sea-ice does not grow in in winter only. It thickens during spring and early summer too. This is because (fresh) meltwater from snow percolates through the ice and freezes on contact with the subzero water. This surprised Nansen quita a bit on the Fram expedition. There were big meltwater pools on the ice, and yet it grew thicker and thicker! Incidentally Fram recorded an average thickness of 3,1 meters in 1893-96 and Sedov 2,2 meters along the same route in 1937-38.
Also seals can actually make and maintain breathing holes in the ice if there is no convenient polynyas. However this is dangerous, since they have to come back frequently to keep it open, and polar bears have learned to keep watch at such holes. Here is a nice picture of a hole, complete with seal:
http://www.polarfoto.com/aktuell/ringel.jpg
Rabe (11:58:26) :
Would someone please explain to me which physical miracle leads to the fact that older ice is more resistant to melting than some younger one? Is it also true that water, which stayed longer in the liquid phase doesn’t freeze as fast as just melted one…
You’re quite right. It’s the thickness of the ice that matters. It happens that ice that survives more than one season is usually thicker than the new ice.
As Phil. noted in another thread, there are other physical mechanisms in play. If they are as important as stated in this link is another matter.
“John Galt (12:15:18) :
Rabe (11:58:26) :
Would someone please explain to me which physical miracle leads to the fact that older ice is more resistant to melting than some younger one? Is it also true that water, which stayed longer in the liquid phase doesn’t freeze as fast as just melted one…
You’re quite right. It’s the thickness of the ice that matters. It happens that ice that survives more than one season is usually thicker than the new ice.”
It’s not just a question of volume of ice. The density of the ice has much more to do with the “rate of melting”. The rate at which ice melts depends of course on the temperature of that ice but as well also on the temperature surrounding the ice. The thickness of the ice will have a role in compacting the ice to increase it’s density. In other words, the denser the ice, the more”frozen water molecules” are in there, the longer it will take to transform all the molecules contained in the chunck of ice from ice-water to liquid-water.
As for the question about the liquid water… the only thing that will play on the speed at which the liquid-water to solid-water is the temperature of that water and the temperature of the air above it. Of course, evaporation will certainly help in decreasing the temperature of the surface of the water, which could trigger the freezing. I don’t think we can have super-cooled water in the ocean… too much mixing and elements in there.
John W. (10:48:09) :
Reasonable people can disagree. 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. I think it will require an international conference to change it although, as has been suggested, someone else could take the raw data and chart a new running average of their choosing. That won’t be me!