Many of you watch sea ice as closely as some people follow the NFL, soccer, or NASCAR. So when something of interest happens, I’m not without an inbox full of notices.
Today it is encouraging to see the NANSEN is reporting that both Arctic Sea Ice area and extent are above the normal line. Usually we don’t see both in this mode. Here’s area:
And here is extent:
Source: http://arctic-roos.org/observations/satellite-data/sea-ice/ice-area-and-extent-in-arctic
By itself, this is just a small thing, but it is just one more indication that there’s some improvement in the Arctic Ice situation again, and the indications are that we’ll have another summer extent that is higher than the previous year, for the third year in a row.
Of course our friends will argue that extent and area don’t matter now, that only volume and ice quality (the rotten ice meme) matters.
Interestingly, if you go back to the press releases on the record minimum extent in 2007 at NSIDC here:
http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/2007.html
And search the entire set of release for the word “volume”, you won’t find it used anywhere that year. The volume worry is a more recent talking point that first appeared in October 2008 when it became apparent that extent wasn’t continuing to decline. They couldn’t tout another record low extent, so volume became the next big thing:
http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/2008/
Arctic sea ice minimum press release
Please see the NSIDC press release, “Arctic Sea Ice Down to Second-Lowest Extent; Likely Record-Low Volume” for a detailed analysis of this year’s Arctic sea ice minimum and a synopsis of the 2008 melt season.
With nature still not cooperating with “death spiral predictions”, what will be the press release ice meme this year? Color? Texture? Cracks per square kilometer? It will be interesting to watch.
R. Gates says:
April 29, 2010 at 11:35 am
R. Gates, thank you for your post. What I think many on this site do not understand is that extent, while a useful metric and something that has been monitored continuously since the 1970s from satellite, it is the ice volume that is of most importance but until recently was only available from in situ or submarine observations. ICESat and Cryosat are the first satellites dedicated to mapping ice volume on the planet and the brief span of ICESat revealed rather large changes in the ice thickness in the Arctic Ocean this past decade. The reason why this matters is that at some point the sea ice will reach a thickness at which it will be unable to survive the summer melt season. Thus, the ice volume metric is the one of interest. And of course to all those who want to explore the Arctic for oil and gas and other minerals, if the Ocean is covered by a thin layer of ice in the spring (and thus the ice extent still shows high values), they can still move their ships through the thin ice and set up drilling rigs.
“PeterB in Indianapolis
It is GOOD because AGWT alarmists tell us that LESS ICE IS BAD!”
But I don’t believe what they tell me because they don’t present empirical evidence that less ice is bad…. it’s just a mantra or at best an unsupported hypothesis.
Luboš Motl says: “That’s really bizarre because Cryosphere shows a big recent drop in the Arctic ice…”
It’s the new science of charm and flavor: Dark Ice is appearing and metastasizing into normal ice. You doubt? See the ice upturn on the DMI chart (29 April):
http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/icecover.uk.php
I think the new problem will be the amount of yellow snow on top of the ice altering the albedo. The yellow snow appears predominantly around polar research stations which leads us to the conclusion that there is a antropogenic effect causin the yellow snow. Which in turn means that it is much worse than we thought and that we are all going to die…
P.S Don´t eat the yellow snow…
R. Gates says:
April 29, 2010 at 11:35 am
Isn’t PIOMAS a model? Why are you presenting it as data?
Paddy, I think the alarmists send in their unicorns to drill and measure the ice thickness with their horns.
Oh, and they use teleconnections to report their findings.
R. Gaits on Arctic ice volume trends, and predicting 2010 summer to be the 2nd lowest extent, the lowest to be by about 2015 etc. Perhaps you recall the Wegener Institute’s arctic-wide survey of arctic ice in spring 2009 at the same time the Catlin Exp was finding unprecedented deterioration of the ice. WI found that the ice was considerably thicker across the arctic than had been expected:
http://bing.search.sympatico.ca/?q=Wegener%20Institute%20arctic%20ice%20thicker%20than%20thought&mkt=en-ca&setLang=en-CA
“…Ice in the Arctic is often twice as thick as expected, report surprised scientists who returned last week from a major scientific expedition. The scientists – a 20-member contingent from Canada, the U.S., Germany, and Italy – spent one month exploring the North Pole as well as never-before measured regions of the Arctic (by air with low level instrumentation). Among their findings: Rather than finding newly formed ice to be two metres thick, “we measured ice thickness up to four metres,” stated a spokesperson for the Alfred Wegener Institute for Polar and Marine Research of the Helmholtz Association, Germany’s largest scientific organization.”
This probably reflects the severe cold weather that prevailed in the arctic in winters 2007-08 and 2008-09. All the ice extent experts in 2007 mistakenly took for melting what was the result of an unusually strong and extended wind condition that flushed the ice out of the Arctic. A WUWT poster assembled a time series video of the event from NSIDC’s own data that dramatically showed this phenomenon – recently, Japanese researchers “borrowed” this animation and reported the finding as their own as I recall. (sorry about no links here but they are on WUWT and elsewhere). The other thing missed by ice extent scientists apparently (I pointed it out to NSIDC in 2008 when I also sent my predictions for increasing ice extent to expect for the next several years) that the fall winter re-freeze curve for 2007 was one of the steepest on record.
The WI findings were also a prominent WUWT thread at the time. Sometimes poor data can be worse than no data (you graciously point out that the data is not definitive but its all we have) – the volume you refer to would perhaps be as much as doubled by the Wegener Institute.
Paddy said on April 29, 2010 at 12:49 pm:
How is sea ice volume or mass determined? Is it modeled? What types of empirical data are available?
The terrifying Arctic Ice anomaly chart was made using PIOMAS, a model discussed in this recent WUWT article. Info about PIOMAS from the people who made the chart is available here. There is little in the way of actual data on thickness available, you will see the model they use relies on assumptions like new ice must be thin while older multi-year ice must be thick. There was previously a satellite taking measurements, there is a new one that should soon be operational if not already. But that one will measure the “freeboard” of ice chunks, the distance from the surface of the ice to the top of the water, and from that data there will be calculations based on “educated assumptions” to figure out the likely actual ice volume.
Offhand I don’t know how the Antarctic ice volume is figured out, and if those numbers are better or worse than the Arctic ones in quality.
Anthony,
You need to get hold of the Ozzie ABC program ‘Catalyst’ screened last night (29 April 2010 at 8.00 pm) that stated that Antartica ice on the eastern side had reduced thickness by 10 meteres recently through satellite “evidence”. Just to add “expert” opinion a fellow by the name of James Hansen (who was in Australia recently) appeared on screen.
It would be interesting to get validation of this opinion by other experts.
skye says:
April 29, 2010 at 12:59 pm
Skye – what do you make of this?
http://psc.apl.washington.edu/zhang/IDAO/icevol_nao.gif
This is a hindcast of ice volume going all the way back to 1948. Was the ice volume back in 1948 nearly as low as it is today? If so, why?
Why do you not belive ice thickness has reduced? Those damn lying scientists 😀
Below is a EUMETSAT image taken today, it shows ice in the eastern half and the western end of the northwest passage breaking up. I am pretty sure the NW passage is not supposed to break up in april.
[url]http://i39.tinypic.com/zlb33k.jpg[/url]
Incidently you can also just see the early break up of Hudsons Bay. Not suprising when 15% of the ice there is under 15cm thick not its usual 1.4m.
[url]http://ice-glaces.ec.gc.ca/prods/WIS54SD/20100426180000_WIS54SD_0004940942.gif[/url]
Still, guess we find out in september 😀
Paddy,
Ice volume is estimated using a number of different sources, empirical measurements being the most accurate for the locations measured. There are also satellite measurements, such as Icesat, which uses altimetry, the GRACE gravity measurements [not very accurate WRT ice thickness], and Radarsat InSAR measurements. None of these are accurate enough to measure a change of 100 cu km/year in ice volume. But the Arctic and Antarctic are such large areas that physically measuring ice thickness is impractical.
The University of Bremen uses reports of ice extent to draw its maps. Here is a map of Arctic summer ice for the past three years. Summer ice is more indicative of global ice changes than winter ice. If there is something alarming happening, I can’t see it.
Estimates of ice extent take many sources into account and model them. Fudge factors are used, which is why different sources show somewhat different totals. And of course, when you see scary charts like this, you can be pretty sure they were made that way for a reason. Compare that chart with the U. of Bremen’s map, and decide which is more alarming.
There is nothing out of the ordinary happening. The climate is entirely benign. The natural ebb and flow of temperature, ice extent, droughts and hurricanes is normal, and the current climate is well within its past parameters. That is why the alarmist crowd cannot falsify the null hypothesis.
Instead, they cherry-pick normal, routine events, convert them into scary charts, and frighten the credulous folks who then post here, trying to convince everyone else that the end is nigh. It isn’t. What we see is simply natural climate variability.
A little flashback…
Inconvenient truth for Al Gore as his North Pole sums don’t add up
Mr Gore, speaking at the Copenhagen climate change summit, stated the latest research showed that the Arctic could be completely ice-free in five years.
In his speech, Mr Gore told the conference: “These figures are fresh. Some of the models suggest to Dr [Wieslav] Maslowski that there is a 75 per cent chance that the entire north polar ice cap, during the summer months, could be completely ice-free within five to seven years.”
However, the climatologist whose work Mr Gore was relying upon dropped the former Vice-President in the water with an icy blast.
“It’s unclear to me how this figure was arrived at,” Dr Maslowski said. “I would never try to estimate likelihood at anything as exact as this.”
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/copenhagen/article6956783.ece#cid=OTC-RSS&attr=797093
R. Gates:
Your predictions are based on computer models. Okay. What did those models predict for the spring of 2010?
Assuming that they are currently very wrong, and assuming they are closer to correct by the fall, does that indicate to you that the models have skill?
In a forecasting class long ago, the professor told us: “If you get the sky condition wrong but the high temperature right, you were wrong on both counts.” That’s because the high temperature is a function of the amount of cloudiness and one can’t forecast an accurate temperature without getting the sky condition right. Similarly, your ice forecasting models base the next step in their calculations on the previous step. They are already wrong, so if they get more correct based on bad data (the last iteration), then they are doubly wrong.
Of course, the models may be constantly run with new real world data, but appear to be incapable of predicting increasing ice, likely due to the assumption of AGW embedded in the software. One can not use a decline in sea ice to say the models have skill and the theory of AGW is validated, and then simply ignore the times when sea ice is increasing, which, likewise, would indicate that the models have no skill and the theory of AGW is invalidated. Do they have skill or are you just using ‘curve fitting’ to bolster your belief system?
If they have skill, then you need to explain why they have been wrong lately. The excuse of ‘noise’ is not valid. The ice has not been increasing over the last few years due to ‘noise’ in the environment. There are physical reasons and the models obviously don’t know what they are or how to compute them.
Ice volume fudging is perfect for scaremongering.
So little data, so little constraint.
Ice volume is in the eye of the modeler.
Meet the new HAL2010: PIOMAS.
The ice machine must be broken. AGAIN
My guess for the AGW Ice argument is….clarity! With increased CO2 in the atmosphere, the ice will contain higher levels of dissolved CO2. Dissolved gases in ice cause the ice to be cloudy. This cloudiness allows the ice to absorb more heat and then transmit the heat to the deep ocean. That explains the missing heat that has been screwing up the IPCC models!
http://igloo.atmos.uiuc.edu/cgi-bin/test/print.sh?fm=04&fd=28&fy=1980&sm=04&sd=28&sy=2010
4/28/1980 vs 4/28/2010 30% concentration. Look at the uniform deep purple of 2010 vs the many streaks of lighter purple (80%-ish) in 1980 in the central ice mass.
Then tell me again about “rotten ice” in 2010. Tell me again too about how thick multi-year ice doesn’t happen anymore. By definition you’re going to have more thick ice in a 100% concentration area than a lesser concentration area as you get into melt season. The thin ice is going to tend towards breaking up into “rotten ice” first.
The volume worry is a more recent talking point that first appeared in October 2008 when it became apparent that extent wasn’t continuing to decline. They couldn’t tout another record low extent, so volume became the next big thing:
Looks like the “volume worry” goes back to at least 2004 – in fact, that’s probably why ICESat was launched in January 2003, and designed in the 1990’s:
“The volume response to rising temperatures” – sounds like global warming is melting the Arctic sea ice.
Oh, and here’s 4/28/2007 vs 4/28/2010: http://igloo.atmos.uiuc.edu/cgi-bin/test/print.sh?fm=04&fd=28&fy=2007&sm=04&sd=28&sy=2010
MattN says:
April 29, 2010 at 10:37 am
How’s S.H. sea ice extent/area looking?
OMG, it’s within 1 km\2 of absolutely normal (statistic verified by squinting)
http://iup.physik.uni-bremen.de:8084/amsr/amsre.html
Smokey says:
April 29, 2010 at 1:30 pm
Where did you get that instruments like ICESat cannot measure ice volume at a metric of 100 cu km/year? First off ICESat does not measure ice volume, it measures the freeboard height. You would need additional knowledge like the snow depth and the areal extent of the ice to compute the actual ice volume. Ron Kwok at JPL has spent several years doing just this and he has the most accurate estimates of ice volume from ICESat available.
The link you pointed to is June ice cover, right when the melt season is starting to get underway. Why didn’t you point to the September ice cover from the Bremen sight? That is the value of interest, at the end of the melt season. Are you cherrypicking?
And you’re comparing a June ice extent with monthly modeled ice volume estimates? They are not even close to the same thing.
Thus, your comments to Paddy don’t make any logical sense, sorry.
rbateman says: April 29, 2010 at 1:46 pm
Ice volume fudging is perfect for scaremongering.
So little data, so little constraint.
Ice volume is in the eye of the modeler.
Notice how the model overestimates the sea ice volume, which was measured by ICESat in 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008 and 2009.
http://psc.apl.washington.edu/ArcticSeaiceVolume/images/IceVolAnomaly19792010.MarNov2.png
What do you say when ice volume is in the eye of a satellite ?
The PIOMAS ice volume model assimilates measurements from navy submarine, mooring, field measurements and airplane missions. Soon they will have CryoSat-2 measurements to pick up the slack for the dead ICESat mission.
Have you heard of ICEBridge ? NASA has extensive airplane overflights to get Arctic sea ice volume, and other data:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XWYfiN7GfSY
Try not to be scared – it’s only data.
The Ghost Of Big Jim Cooley says:
Colour, flavour, centre…all better : )
Oui, l’orthographe française. C’est mieux, n’est-ce pas?
.
bubbagyro says:
I wonder if they will blame Elfyltotemgriggragglubglubgrindel for that, somehow.
Or Elfyltotemgriggragglubglubgrindle, if you prefer.