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
Chuck Bradley (10:51:03) :
The Willie Soon thing you mention is on ICECAP with a nice photo.
Slightly off topic. The Register has an article with an interesting spin on polar ice cap melting. The study is from NASA
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/04/09/arctic_aerosols_goddard_institute/
Phew – that’s a relief then.
NASA inferred that three will be less Arctic ice this Summer simply because there is more young ice.
Well, the most melting ever recorded the last 30 years of satellite observation was in 2007 so I would have to assume there was a record amount of new ice in the refreeze after that.
But 9% less ice melted in the Summer of 2008, so I would have to believe there will be more multi year ice in the Summer of 2009 than in either of the two prior Summer.
Thus less melting, when using NASA’s reasoning.
Unfortunately too many scientists are predicting melting and they stop observing what is actually happening. No mention by NASA of cooling ocean currents.
Rabe (11:58:26) :
“Would someone please explain to me which physical miracle . . .”
{melting new versus old ice and other astounding miracles}
Heck of a link below but I searched on “old ice” +”new ice” density melting
and took the second link “Descriptive Physical . . . “
http://books.google.com/books?id=94GNMv57uH8C&pg=PA229&lpg=PA229&dq=%22old+ice%22+%2B%22new+ice%22+density+melting&source=bl&ots=kWGL3Ek-wL&sig=u_E1k8oLoNqzQK3JnTvqyAjd8U8&hl=en&ei=XQbcSYe5CYnAMoOS_eIN&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2
The idea is that this is not tap water and you ought not to think of it as such. Being physics, it’s not a miracle, but it is interesting.
It seems like the more that sea ice is discussed here, the higher it goes!!!
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/global.daily.ice.area.withtrend.jpg
Just look at that anomaly…
Phil.
“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.”
I don’t see where you got that figure of a reduction of 0.7 m. For buoy 2006C the 2007 and 2008 thicknesses follow a very similar profile, though 1 m thinner than 2007. This is only one buoy, though – CRREL have a much more complete dataset and in their recent review paper they conclude:
SUMMARY POINTS
1. There has been a significant decrease in the extent of Arctic sea ice, particularly at the end of summer.
2. There has been a decrease in the amount of perennial sea ice, making the ice cover more susceptible to changes in atmospheric and oceanic forcing.
3. The observed changes in sea ice are a result of thermodynamic and dynamic processes.
4. The observed September minimum annual ice extent has decreased faster than model predictions.
5. The ice-albedo feedback is contributing to the decline of the sea ice cover.
FUTURE ISSUES
1. Has the Arctic sea ice cover passed a tipping point and is it heading toward a new state?
2. What impact will a reduced summer ice cover have on the global climate system?
3. How can we better forecast and plan for future sea ice changes on regional, as well as Arctic, scales?
4. What are the societal implications for an ice-free summer Arctic Ocean?
So while the WUWT ice survey might want to conclude there is thickening ice (which of course there will be if you take the last six months), the research team actually gathering the data has reached some rather different conclusions.
I certainly agree this is far more valid work than the Catlin stunt which is doing a disservice to polar science.
Mike Bryant (13:05:38) :
“It seems like the more that sea ice is discussed here, the higher it goes!!!
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/global.daily.ice.area.withtrend.jpg
Just look at that anomaly…”
Mike,
The anomaly looks very healthy to me.
Nothing to worry about.
Ray (12:36:08) :
“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? ”
It’s a matter of experience.
The older ice is floating around longer.
Steven Goddard – should have cheched the home page before I posted this on the otehr thread. You should be able to recreate a thickness transect to the pole from the current buoys out there.
my original post:
I while back there was some discussion on the Catlin site about a “record day” for ice core drilling near the first re-supply site where Pen stated he had drilled 48 cores. A satellite image was presented March 17th. See:
http://www.catlinarcticsurvey.com/Difficult_decisions_
The airstrip has a noted thickness of 1.06m – I love the accuracy. But we also know that the radar system was non-operational from the BBC report, therefore my assumption is that much of Pen’s work was done around the map area, in the middle of a freeze/refreeze area. One could hardly call the airstrip first year ice as it was more like “last months”. So onto more statisitcs. The BBC articel goes on to state:
“With 102 holes drilled so far, hundreds of measurements have been made of ice thickness and snow cover over the 243km covered so far. ”
With 48 of the 102 measurements made most likely within the Radarsat image (that’s 48@1.06m), what can we learn about average thickness? If thier estimate of 1.5 to 2m meters is the average then the other half of the measurements must be 2 to 2.5m. What kind of independant information can we use to verify this? The international Arctic Buoy program site helps out.
http://iabp.apl.washington.edu/maps_daily_northpole.html
You can see the drift and the buoy id’s. One examply bouy that is along the path is 30294. It has a 2009 max ice thickness of 292 cm. Specific information found here:
http://imb.crrel.usace.army.mil/2008D.htm
kuhnkat,
Good question. The answer is that a lot of multi-year ice blew out into the North Atlantic and melted during the last two winters.
Funny, I was at a lecture last Saturday where http://www.soton.ac.uk/mediacentre/guidetoexpertise/simon_boxall.html Simon Boxall (an oceanographer and BBC pundit) made a clear prediction that the Arctic ice cap will be gone by 2020-2025.
Thing is, I almost believed him. Then he made the fatal mistake of telling those present that the Thames Barrier was being closed twice a month now, as opposed to two or three times a year – and that we will need to be replacing the Barrier “soon”. Little did he know that I was working at the Thames Barrier that Christmas (2002) when we closed 19 times consecutively – and it had absolutely nothing to do with climate change at all, but rather a change in the operating rule.
Then I knew he didn’t really know what he was talking about. I’d love to hear his response to these figures.
The next summer Big Fat Al will point his most marvelous Magic Wand made specially for him, by the nether world master magician, to the north polar ice and will demand it to melt down inmediately, if it doesn´t then his north koreans fans will send a transcontinental rocket magic wand to perform the magic; then with His most profound and weighty voice acting like “jericho trumpets” which tumble stone walls down, will admonish the unbelievers to surrender under his greasy power.,
The age of the ice matters, as salt comes out of the crystalline structure of ice, over time. The lower the salt content, the higher the melting point.
Also, as I recall, but don’t hold me to it, that fresher water ice has better physical strength, than ice with salt.
Bill Ryan (09:03:23) :
It would appear any sort of cap and trade legislation is dead for this year’s session. Which means it will be dead next year, as politicians become quite shy in an election year.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/chris-weigant/is-cap-and-trade-dead-thi_b_183781.html
I have believed all along the cap and trade stuff was just empty rhetoric. People simply will not stand for a doubling of their utility or gasoline bills.
The great experiment continues. Mankind continues to dump CO2 in the atmosphere, the globe continues to cool, and certain predictions regarding the polar ice cap will be thoroughly tested. It will be another 3 years before cap and trade will even be considered. Only a year away from Hansen’s tipping point and two years from Al Gore’s ice free polar cap deadline.
Wonder what the ice cap will look like by then?
Shhh… Shhh…
It’s the Military Man… Don’t you know you can’t trust their data…
Wait… What’s that… Sounds like a Helicopter…
Huh…
(Mummph).
If this has already been posted, I apologize. But I would be remiss if I didn’t point out this part of this website:
http://imb.crrel.usace.army.mil/change.htm
The Arctic sea ice cover is in decline. Observations show significant decreases in September sea ice extent. Satellite-derived estimates of the minimum ice extent suggest a net reduction between 1978 and 1998 at a rate of 3% per decade. The rate of decline of the summer sea ice cover has been consistently accelerating in recent years and was 15% per decade from 1998 to 2008. The 2007 summer sea ice extent marked a new record minimum for the period of passive microwave satellite observation beginning in 1979. At 4.3 million km2 the 2007 summer sea ice cover was 39 percent smaller than the long-term average from 1979 to 2000. An extended time series of sea ice extent, derived primarily from operational sea ice charts produced by national ice centers, suggests that the 2007 September ice extent was 50 percent lower than conditions in the 1950s to the 1970s [Stroeve et al., 2008]. Results from Stroeve et al. [2007] indicate that the observed decrease in Arctic summer sea ice extent is larger than that GCM ensemble mean prediction.
Jack Simmons (13:39:06) :
Bill Ryan (09:03:23) :
…Now the race is on to see whether the upcoming winters will be sufficiently cold to convince the politicians that AGW is not a threat, before they pass economically destructive legislation trying to curtail it.
It’s going to be a close one…
It would appear any sort of cap and trade legislation is dead for this year’s session. Which means it will be dead next year, as politicians become quite shy in an election year.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/chris-weigant/is-cap-and-trade-dead-thi_b_183781.html
I have believed all along the cap and trade stuff was just empty rhetoric. People simply will not stand for a doubling of their utility or gasoline bills.
…
Wonder what the ice cap will look like by then?
If no CAP & TRADE, then a certain President will have a rather large hole in their budget.
Now how will that be filled?
Jack/Bill: Cap and trade is not dead, but it will be emasculated.
The Thune, Ensign and Johanns amendments all reduce how effective Cap and Trade would be.
The Thune and Ensign amendment limit how much could be charged, by stating that it can’t raise the price of gasoline or electricity (Thune), or increase taxes to the middle class (Ensign).
The Johanns amendment keeps it from being filibuster proof, and also shows Democratic opposition to such legislation.
If it can’t raise the price of gasoline or electricity, it will be most ineffective.
Say CAP & TRADE Dies a lonely death in Congress. What’s to stop the EPA going ahead and regulating CO2 emissions?
J; Your
Thing is, I almost believed him. Then he made the fatal mistake of telling those present that the Thames Barrier was being closed twice a month now, as opposed to two or three times a year – and that we will need to be replacing the Barrier “soon”.
Apparently your speaker didn’t know that experts have said that the barrier will be sufficient until 2070. Which, in geologic terms, is soon.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/7973623.stm
Les Johnson (13:37:09) :
Usually, mixtures don’t freeze. Sea water is a mixture of pure water and mostly salt. During the freezing process, the solvent’s freezing/melting point is depressed due to the presence of solutes (i.e. salts). But it is the pure solvent that freezes, extracting the solute in the process. Of course, there can be some solutes that gets trapped in the intertices but generally, if you would freeze a solution very slowly, you would get the pure solvent, as solid, and the liquid phase would get more and more concentrated, depressing even more the freezing point of the remaining solution.
Hydrogen bonds give water its impressive properties. Pure water when frozen very slowly will give a perfect lattice of very strong hydrogen bonds. Those bonds are so strong that a thin 10 cm layer can hold the weight of a fully loaded transport truck (that’s why they can use ice bridges in the winter). However, when you introduce impurities, the hydrogen bond structure is weaker than the case of the perfect cristal structure.
I attended James Hansen’s talk at the Conference on World Affairs today in Boulder. He covered the loss of sea ice quite extensively and several times he brought up warmth in the “pipeline”.
Interestingly, he acknowledged cooling in 2008 due to Southern Oscillation and claimed that global temps will exceed records again within 1 or 2 years.
Within an hour after his talk, a cold front moved in and a rain/snow mix is expected. That’s nothing unusual for Colorado in April and certainly not unusual for Hansen’s presence.
J,
“Little did he know that I was working at the Thames Barrier that Christmas (2002) when we closed 19 times consecutively – and it had absolutely nothing to do with climate change at all, but rather a change in the operating rule.”
Operational closures appear to be excluded from the record of tidal-surge closures – there were only two of the latter in 2002. The history for such barrier closures, triggered by an expected water level of 4.87m in central London, is here:
http://www.grdp.org/research/library/data/58613.aspx
Given the clear trend of increasing Barrier closures due to tidal surges, and indeed the CRREL data Steven has brought to our attention, I’d say Simon Boxall might know what he’s talking about.
Several people have asked recently about global sea ice.
Here is a very simple spreadsheet containing all the monthly sea ice data Nov 1978 through March 2009 ready tabulated for graphing, calculating or whatever. No graphs. No macros.
.xls which can be imported into most software packages
There are two months missing, no data. Up to you how you handle that. I’ve set to blank, not zero. Should xy graph just fine.
http://www.gpsl.net/climate/data/sea_ice/global_sea_ice.zip (29k)