You gotta love it when the Earth gives back the love, especially today.
Those who have been following NSIDC and JAXA sea ice plots have noted that this has been an extraordinary year so far, with Arctic sea ice hitting the “normal” line on some datasets. Today the Earth gave back more for us.
As of today, JAXA shows that we have more ice than any time on this date for the past 8 years of Aqua satellite measurement for this AMSRE dataset. Yes, it isn’t much, but if this were September, and the sea ice minimum was down by this much compared to all other years, you can bet your sweet bippy we’d see it screamed in news headlines worldwide.
Of course some will argue that it “doesn’t matter” in the context of trend, or that it’s just a “weather” blip. Let us remind our friends of such blips the next time a heat wave or a storm is cited as proof of global warming.
What can be said about the short term trend in Arctic sea ice is that for the past two years, it has recovered from the historic low of 2007. It recovered in 2008, and more in 2009. If today’s Earth Day gift is any indication, it appears that it is on track now for a third year of recovery in 2010 as we’ve been saying at WUWT since fall of 2009.
I’d show NSIDC’s current Arctic Sea Ice graph also, but their website was down earlier today, and the current sea ice graph is not updated. But Steve Goddard has made some comparison overlays that are interesting.
He writes via email:
NSIDC’s web site is down today, but I overlaid DMI on top of the NSIDC graph and it should have hit the mean line today. Same story for JAXA. Images are below.
DMI uses 30% concentration, so their scale is lower than NSIDC and JAXA at 15%. I shifted the DMI data upwards and stretched vertically to visually match the NISDC data.
The second image is JAXA, DMI and NSIDC together. JAXA also needed to be shifted vertically as they apparently use a different algorithm for calculating extent than NSIDC. All three track each other fairly closely during the spring, DMI diverges from the others during the fall freeze up – probably because of the higher concentration requirements.
Blue is NSIDC. Green is JAXA. Black is DMI. The thick black line is the NSIDC mean. The dashed line is the 2007 historic low.
ADDED: Here is a wider view that shows that the three time series match closely over the interval of the NSIDC graph
======================
Happy Earth Day everybody!
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
rbateman (04:27:47) :
I should have went to the page and read how the graph was made like you did. DOH!
I also see ClimateProgress says almost the exact wording as Anu’s.
http://climateprogress.org/2009/07/23/nsidc-record-low-arctic-sea-ice-area-extent-volume/
Gee… with this “unprecedented” rate of ice growth, we must be at the tipping point into a new Ice age. The albedo will be racing downhill as this ice accumulates. It’s an unstoppable trend!! We’re all doomed I say, doomed!
/sarcoff>
Or maybe we do need to start spinning things as doom. Seems to always work…
Stu (13:29:02) :
“geoff pohanka (11:35:55) :
Not only is there more Arctic ice today than in past years, the ice is also thicker.
Thicker ice melts more slowly.
http://igloo.atmos.uiuc.edu/cgi-bin/test/print.sh?fm=04&fd=18&fy=1980&sm=04&sd=18&sy=2010”
Is ‘thickness’ usually synonynous with ‘concentration’ here? These maps show a more purplish colour when the ice is more concentrated, but is the ice actually thicker? R Gates has said recently that the ice this year is a lot thinner than other years and that is a cause of concern for him. I suppose it is possible that the ice can be more concentrated but also be thinner, but I’m actually a little confused about these two terms. Is there data available which shows ice thickness as opposed to concentration?
Anyone help out?
R Gates?
————–
Stu,
I posted this graph a few days ago, and you might want to look it over:
http://psc.apl.washington.edu/ArcticSeaiceVolume/images/BPIOMASIceVolumeAnomalyCurrent.png
This measures the volume of the sea ice. When looking at the concentration, that does NOT take into account the volume, where volume is the more significant factor when it comes to melting. Concentration simply refers to how much open water there is, or how closely packed the ice flows are, but not the thickness of that ice. The volume chart above should be (and is) cause for concern as it really gives a better idea for the overall state of the sea ice. The extremely negative AO index of this winter which caused the snow in lower latitudes such as Florida, also brought very high temps to the arctic, and even though that meant less ice being forced through areas such as the Fram strait, and so we had more multi-year ice building up, that multi-year ice is not nearly as thick as it would have been if the arctic had been very cold for several years on end. The graph above really gets to the point about about why I see the summer low minimum at around 4.5 million sq. km (based on JAXA data). The ice is thin, and when the heart of the melt season hits (June, July, August) it will go fast because its volume is so low. For example, look at this Bering Sea chart:
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/recent365.anom.region.2.html
and notice the “bump up” in March and April, much talked about here on WUWT, quickly melted away because the average thickness of the “bump” was only 4 to 12 inches, which is barely anything when it comes to sea ice…
E.M.Smith (08:22:11) :
Gee… with this “unprecedented” rate of ice growth, we must be at the tipping point into a new Ice age. The albedo will be racing downhill as this ice accumulates. It’s an unstoppable trend!! We’re all doomed I say, doomed!
/sarcoff>
Or maybe we do need to start spinning things as doom. Seems to always work…
_______________________________________________________________________________
You could try the spin on the US Congress critters. They have certainly proved to be susceptible to spin…. or is that bribes? I keep forgetting
AndyW (22:16:48) :
On January 1, Arctic ice extent was actually the highest in the last five years.
http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/icecover.uk.php
stevengoddard said:
On January 1, Arctic ice extent was actually the highest in the last five years.
http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/icecover.uk.php
—————
All very interesting Steve…and if it continues over say, 5 or 10 years, might even be important. More importantly is this dowward trend in sea ice volume:
http://psc.apl.washington.edu/ArcticSeaiceVolume/images/BPIOMASIceVolumeAnomalyCurrent.png
That has occured over the past 30+ years. Volume is a far better indicator of the state of the cryosphere than simple extent…but of course, you know that.
The DMI Arctic temp record shows that the profile for summer temps (above the melt line) have varied very little year to year from 1958 to 2009. Clearly, global warming in the Arctic is missing.
Meanwhile the lunatics have taken over the asylum
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/apr/23/cochabamba-climate-court
I know that wind & currents are the most important factors for Arctic ice melt, but don’t know what those factors are for ice formation. Is it just temperature? and if so, is it a linear relationship or what? or is it more complicated, as I suspect?
Sorry for these basic questions, but I couldn’t find the answers elsewhere. Perhaps someone can point me in the right direction.
kadaka (23:16:57) :
See, don’t citations make the discussion more precise ?
If this summer’s minimum Arctic sea ice extent is less than 2009, it might still be only the 3rd smallest for this decade, hence your statement:
kadaka (13:07:31) :
Where is the post from Anu saying how all this eggshell-thin new ice will be gone by September as we hit the lowest extent in a decade?
didn’t apply to the post you cited.
But thanks for clearing up what you were talking about.
where the whole Trenberth thing where he complained about the “missing heat” was discussed and debunked, you were a complete no-show.
Yeah, sorry I can’t join in on every single thread at WUWT. I have limited free time. But I have talked about ocean heat content at length on some threads here, for instance this Comment and several after:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/04/15/noaa-says-warmest-march-on-record/#comment-370593
And for the record, I hope Dr. Trenberth’s arguments for getting funding for additional climate observing instruments are successful. Things like Argo are still in the beginning stages…
PIOMAS is a hindcasting model based on five years of ICESat data, attempting to determine with that and the NSIDC extent data what volume was in the past.
I wonder how long until they have their “hide the decline” moment?
It’s a worthy effort, and I applaud them for it –but I won’t be putting any particular faith in it until they’ve had at least another decade of real data from the new Euro satellite to tune their models with.
MiniB,
Wind, currents, air temp, water temp, and salinity are all factors. Tons of great info on this all over the net…
Amino Acids in Meteorites (07:41:50) :
Don’t beat yourself up. They have more flavors of model kool-aid hidden in every nook and cranny than any single imagination can run wild with.
Today’s menu has “You’ll be Sorry” soup with “Doomsday Trend” Tuna Melts.
For dessert, we have “Arctic Reversal is Unimportant” baked Alaska.
Afterwards, we’ll be selecting the next victim to sacrifice to the Angry ModelGod : PIOMAS
geo (10:05:41) :
“PIOMAS is a hindcasting model based on five years of ICESat data, attempting to determine with that and the NSIDC extent data what volume was in the past.”
I had a look at this too – I love it when numerical model results are presented as “data”!
Hold it – what’s this???
http://psc.apl.washington.edu/zhang/IDAO/icevol_nao.gif
Oh No!! It looks like the numerical model hindcasted low ice volume in 1948! Need to fix the code…
stevengoddard (08:52:51) :
AndyW (22:16:48) :
On January 1, Arctic ice extent was actually the highest in the last five years.
http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/icecover.uk.php
Ah Steven, Andy is just a bit behind on the narrative. The extant and area numbers are no longer scary enough, so now it is all about the volume (and I’m not referring to how loud the alarmists are screaming).
For example, both R. Gates and Anu have now presented the same terrifying anomoly graph. Strangely enough, you can actually back that URL up to a directory (it’s not blocked) and find this helpful explanatory page:
BTW,
So I guess we go with these modeled results.
Now, the terrifying anomaly graph says the current rate of decline, which of course shall always remain steady, is 3.3 thousand cubic kilometers a decade. The helpful page says “Total Arctic Ice Volume for March 2010 is 20,300 km^3…” Crank the numbers, and 61 1/2 years from last March we’ll run out of sea ice.
And remember, this too shall come to pass as we are already committed to further warming due to the emissions already released. Given the long residence time of CO2 in the atmosphere of 100 years and other effects, we’ll get that warming even if we shut down civilization tomorrow.
The Good News: If you can get an accurate map precisely showing the land/water boundaries, can calculate land contours after the expected sea level rise, and have some money on hand, you can purchase some cheap land where your descendants can build some nice houses on a beachfront. The water might be too cold for a swim except for a real brief period in the summer, but wait a bit longer and that might improve…
Frank K. (10:35:41) :
Niiiiice. I wonder how long until we can expect their thousand-year reconstruction at PIOMAS, showing that arctic ice was also greater during the so-called MWP?
From what I can see, they don’t seem to be showing error bars on their graph. I could be wrong, but the bars they have look like sigmas to me. I wonder if they even have a stab at what the error bars would be with a 5-year calibration?
From Anu (09:57:29) :
See, don’t citations make the discussion more precise ?
You should avoid talking to someone who knows machining about being precise.
You can check a piece on on the floor with dial calipers you can trust within .001″, put it on a surface plate in inspection and read to a half with the height gauge, throw it on the optical comparator and measure to half a tenth, and it still won’t change that the position is off by .037.
Being precise and being correct are separate things, darling. More citations may not make a claim any less wrong.
Amino Acids in Meteorites (00:47:09) :
Anu (23:27:37) :
Your graph is an anomaly graph.
You mean this one, from the Polar Science Center at the Applied Physics Laboratory of the University of Washington ?
http://psc.apl.washington.edu/ArcticSeaiceVolume/images/BPIOMASIceVolumeAnomalyCurrent.png
Yes, I was tipped off by the Title: Arctic Ice Volume Anomaly and Trend from PIOMAS
Looking at the actual difference in volume (something you didn’t point out) it shows very little volume was lost. But your graph makes it look like a lot.
Feel free to read the graph without my “pointing out” what it shows.
But since you brought it up, let’s look at “actual difference in volume”. In 1979, the graph shows an anomaly of +5 thousand cubic kilometers of sea ice. 5000 km^3 is equal to an area of 5,000,000 km^2 with ice 1 meter thick.
Now look at the summer of 2009: an anomaly of about -8 thousand cubic kilometers.
Total anomaly swing in 30 years: a loss of 13,000 km^3.
How much sea ice area is there at the summer minimums these days ? About 4 million km^2:
http://arctic-roos.org/observations/satellite-data/sea-ice/observation_images/ssmi1_ice_area.png
So, 4 million km^2 would have to lose 3.25 meters of ice thickness to equal that volume of ice loss.
And how thick is sea ice ?
http://nsidc.org/seaice/characteristics/index.html
First year ice is about 0.3 to 1 meter thick. Multiyear ice is typically 2 to 4 meters thick.
Not much ice left to lose at this rate.
All volume lost was due to natural variations. Arctic Ice does not stay at the same size. Sometimes it increases through time. Sometimes it decreases.
Sure, since humans are part of “Nature”.
When the Arctic ice disappears some summer soon, you can use your little tautology to “prove” it was all natural.
Maybe you can enlarge that graph and then get Al Gore to ride his lift up to the top of it and scare little children.
Were you scared during that scene ?
Bart (02:29:39) :
Anu (23:27:37) :
See geo (16:02:13) .
That’s a better point than “only 2D extent” matters, as some people here seem to think. Even 2D sea ice area is more significant than 2D extent – but 3D is the most significant – sea ice volume.
As for geo’s claim that they have “a 5 year observational result” with the rest being a “guess”, that’s not quite accurate:
http://psc.apl.washington.edu/ArcticSeaiceVolume/IceVolume.php
Note that the model predicted more Arctic sea ice volume than ICESat measured:
http://psc.apl.washington.edu/ArcticSeaiceVolume/images/IceVolAnomaly19792010.MarNov2.png
I wouldn’t mind seeing people argue about how accurate that Arctic sea ice volume chart is, but to say it is a “guess” or irrelevant, is incorrect.
And as I’ve said before, I look forward to the forthcoming CryoSat-2 data – it’s already in orbit and being prepped.
Anu (11:49:43) :
“Sure, since humans are part of “Nature”.
When the Arctic ice disappears some summer soon, you can use your little tautology to “prove” it was all natural.”
Idiotic response. Firstly what he meant by nature is factor that is not attributed by human activity. You either misunderstood him or just purely fainting stupid.
Even if you prove that what he say is a tautology, it still does not imply that losing ice are due to human activity. All you done is to show he is not saying any matter of fact in the reality, as in this sense it imply both human and non human or both causes losing ice.
The Logical form is∀x((Hx∨~Hx)→Nx), which means for all object that consist the predict of human activity OR not human activity it implies it is a nature process.
However the idiocy of you reveal itself here, as you try to suggests his tautology automatic implies losing ice are in fact primary due to human activity. Which the logical form of your argument will be:
∀x((Hx∨~Hx)→Nx)
And ∀x(Lx→Nx) (For all lose of ice it implies a natural event)
And your conclusion is
L”z”→H”z”
And this reasoning is entirely force, as there is a possible scenario that the conclusion can be L”z” → ~H”z” , from the two previous proposition made by you. Whether the proposition is true or not I do not want to comment here, you can look at my previous post. But all I can say is that your logical reasoning is rally faulty and certainly does not fit to perform any scientific research. Though I must admit your way of reasoning are more simaler to a troll, as all you do are ad hom attack. “OMG he made a tautology he must be a freaking idiot!!!!” Seriously if this is all you climate alarmist does in your so call so call argument, I can assure you that you need to improve your logical reasoning before you argue in anywhere, and stop recommending people to read more science book etc as I can be quite sure that you either read none or lack to logical capability to analyze what it means anyway.
From Anu (11:49:43) :
You mean this one, from the Polar Science Center at the Applied Physics Laboratory of the University of Washington ?
http://psc.apl.washington.edu/ArcticSeaiceVolume/images/BPIOMASIceVolumeAnomalyCurrent.png
Please, you’ve been waving that graph around like a bank robber brandishing a firearm. Except knowledgeable people here realize that model only fires blanks.
From the helpful page explaining that graph:
The last line really gives it away. 2007 saw the great “flushing out” of the Arctic. It is assumed, despite any warming or previous shrinking trends, that multi-year ice must be thick. It is assumed that the new ice, formed in the recovery since 2007, must be thin. This is used in a “useful method” for estimating (read guessing with computers) the volume of ice.
Thus we have identified a possible source of error, since if there was lots of multi-year ice that just barely survived the summer melt then the estimate would show lots of non-existent volume. So estimates prior to the 2007 event could have been high, and the volume could actually be going up.
This goes along with the work of the esteemed Dr. David Barber, reported on here. As it was said at the Greenbang Blog:
Thus we have confirmation that the satellites can get it wrong, which throws off the volume estimates. Thus the accuracy of these dire volume loss predictions is thrown in doubt.
And given the strong regrowth this year, looks like we got lots of strong thick fresh new ice, while the multi-year is actually weak thin rotten ice. And isn’t that a good thing for the Arctic, and the planet?
Feuillet (03:05:34) :
Thanks for your amusing Comment. And it’s refreshing to see such honesty on these threads:
I have no scientific qualification in university, I am just a undergraduate doing philosophy.
I was merely pointing out that saying the recent warming of the planet is “natural” is not an explanation – it is logically equivalent to saying “it is the will of Anu” (the Sumerian sky-god, who helped start Uruk, the very first city).
When Einstein predicted that the gravity of stars would bend light, and it was observed (during a solar eclipse), this is science in action. Saying “so what, light bending around stars is natural” is irrelevance in action.
phlogiston (04:25:40) :
Well, we skeptics are just as lucky that, just at the time we get vocal about questioning AGW, around 2006, climate starts cooling and Arctic ice recovering. Maybe climate is driven by who shouts the loudest.
Yes, Arctic sea ice “recovered” nicely in summer 2007. Good timing.
The word “natural” is useless and has no role in scientific dicsussion. It is so subjective and even metaphysical that its presence in climate debate is an embarrassment. Humans (H. sapiens) are part of nature too. Our CO2 emissions are as “natural” as our farts. Its all natural, even nuclear bombs.
Agreed.
Saying that the planet warming up is “natural” is a tautology.
Competent skeptics like Dr. Lindzen should be working on explanations of why the planet is warming. I don’t think Dr. Svensmark’s research will be fruitful, but at least he has a testable hypothesis. Sniping from the sidelines is not science – I would take people like Dr. Baliunas and Dr. Soon more seriously if they had research on large numbers of G2V type stars showing significant TSI variations over decade time scales, but I’m not so interested in their take on general circulation climate models.
rbateman (04:27:47) :
Anu (23:27:37) :
Apparently, PIOMAS is a model that hindcasts Ice Volume prior to 2003 by extending the TREND LINE as measured by 2003-2007.
Nope, apparently not.
“Hindcast” is when they take known starting conditions, then run a model to “predict” future developments – then compare these predictions to known results that have already occurred. It is a technique for checking how well a model is matching measured reality.
And “extending the trend line” is a weak “prediction” method, suitable for undergraduates guessing summer sea ice extent:
http://www.arcus.org/search/seaiceoutlook/2009_outlook/july_report/downloads/pdf/panarctic/12_KaleschkeHalfmann_JulyReport_JuneData.pdf
The Pan-Arctic Ice-Ocean Modeling and Assimilation System (PIOMAS) is neither:
http://psc.apl.washington.edu/zhang/IDAO/model.html
(although they probably tested the model with some hindcasts).
And navy submarine, mooring, and field measurements are not “guesses”. They are precise data that just don’t have the full coverage of satellites – hence the desire to relaunch CryoSat (since the first one crashed). By the way, ICESat gave data until October 2009 – I’m sure the data will show up in some PIOMAS graph soon.
The Applied Physics Laboratory of the University of Washington is not the only group interested in sea ice age and thickness:
http://www.arctic.noaa.gov/reportcard/seaice.html
I assume you are looking forward to the coming years of CryoSat-2 data proving that everything is just fine in the Arctic.
Amino Acids in Meteorites (07:41:50) :
rbateman (04:27:47) :
I should have went to the page and read how the graph was made like you did. DOH!
Yeah, perhaps a lot more reading is called for.
Couldn’t hurt.