By Steve Goddard and Anthony Watts
The Navy requires accurate sea ice information for their operations, and has spent a lot of effort over the years studying, measuring, and operating in Arctic ice both above and below, such as they did in the ICEX 2009 exercise.
So, if you are planning on bringing a $900 million Los Angeles class submarine through the ice, as the captain might say to the analyst after receiving an ice report: “you’d better be damn sure of the ice thickness before I risk the boat and the crew”.
Below is a blink comparator of U.S. Navy PIPS sea ice forecast data, zoomed to show the primary Arctic ice zone.
The blink map above shows the change in ice thickness from May 27, 2008 to May 27, 2010. As you can see, there has been a large increase in the area of ice more than two metres thick – turquoise, green, yellow and red. Much of the thin (blue and purple) ice has been replaced by thicker ice.
Source images for the blink comparator:
http://www7320.nrlssc.navy.mil/pips2/archive/pips2_thick/2008/pips2_thick.2008052700.gif
http://www7320.nrlssc.navy.mil/pips2/archive/pips2_thick/2010/pips2_thick.2010052700.gif
This was quantified by measuring the area percentage in the Arctic Basin of the 0-1, 1-2, 2-3, 3-4, and 4-5 metre ranges. The graph below shows the results. This technique assumes an equal area projection, which should be fairly accurate north of 70N.
In 2008, less than half of the ice (47%) was greater than two metres thick. Now, more than 75% of the ice is greater than two metres thick. In 2008, 18% of the ice was more than three metres thick. This year that number has increased to 28%. There has been nearly across the board ice thickening since 2008. There was slightly more 4-5 metre ice in 2008, due to the big crunch in the summer of 2007.
Now on to calculating the volume. That calculation is straightforward :
volume = (A1 * 0.5) + (A2 * 1.5) + (A3 * 2.5) + (A4 * 3.5) + (A5 * 4.5)
Where A1 is the area of ice less than one metre, A2 is the area of ice less than two metres, etc. The 2010/2008 volume ratio came out to 1.24, which means there has been approximately a 25% increase in volume over the last two years. The average thickness has increased from about 2.0 metres to 2.5 metres. That means an extra 20 inches of ice will have to melt this summer. So far, this seems unlikely with the cold Arctic temperatures over the last couple of weeks.
http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/plots/meanTarchive/meanT_2010.png
Now let’s look at the volume percentages. In 2010, 87% of the ice (by volume) is greater than two metres thick. But in 2008, only 64% of the ice (by volume) was greater than two metres thick.
A few weeks ago, when extent was highest in the JAXA record, our friends were asking for “volume, not extent.” Their wishes have been answered. Ice volume has increased by 25% in the last two years, and those looking for a big melt are likely going to be disappointed.
Here is the measured data:
Do you think it odd that this increase isn’t prominently mentioned on the PIOMAS site? It seems very relevant.
———————————————–
If a man will begin with certainties, he shall end in doubts; but if he will be content to begin with doubts he shall end in certainties.
– Sir Francis Bacon
Sponsored IT training links:
If your are looking for quick success in 350-018 exam then join today to explore useful 642-974 resources and pass EX0-101 on first try guaranteed.
harrywr2 says:
May 31, 2010 at 10:20 am
R.Gates
“The the Superpowers are planning for an ice free Arctic :”
“In the 1920′s the US military drew up plans for the invasion of Canada. 90 Years later it still hasn’t happened.”
____________________
You can do your own research, and draw your own conclusions about how serious the worlds dominant powers are about taking full advantage of an ice free arctic. There are hundreds of excellent resources on the internet for that. My point was about the validity of the old PIPS 2.0 model data versus far more sophisticated and accurate data that the Navy uses for actual navigation etc. that is based on the latest iterations of CICE which is the same sorts of modeling used by PIOMAS. In short, the PIOMAS model and PIPS 3.0/HYCOM agree, though the PIOMAS only gives the raw data and the PIPS 3.0/HYCOM will show actual very accurate mapping as well and that would be what the Navy would proabably use for navigational aid, versus a model that they stopped using in 2005.
Oops– I forgot to outdent that last paragraph.
Gail Combs said (May 30, 2010 at 3:50 am): ”After the major loss of Sea Ice extent in the summer of 2007 we heard “oh my gosh, it’s a death spiral, the arctic will soon be ICE free, we are all going to drown…”; or words to that effect from the Climate Alarmists and their tame media. Therefore it is entirely logical to look at ice volume after the winter of 2008 and compare it to today to see if the “death spiral” of sea ice is happening as prophesied. The answer is a resounding NO. The THICKNESS of the sea ice is recovering nicely and that is the key issue.”
You invented a quote. Can you produce actual quotes to that effect from leading scientists? I’m skeptical, but maybe you can. If you can then it would be fair to criticize them whether or not the trend has continued. A one year low is not a basis for projecting long term trends. It is likely you can produce such statements from some activists or befuddled reporters. They then certainly should be criticized.
More importantly, you are arguing that it is only fair to be as illogical as those you disagree with. That’s a dangerous course. There are crazy people on both sides of any issue. Instead let’s look at what experienced researchers have to say. From my reading it seems that Arctic sea ice is in a decline. This has many causes about which there is still debate among researches. AGW is likely among these and the loss of sea ice will likely add to GW by reducing the amount of light reflected out to space. There will likely be some negative environmental effects and some positive ones. Rapid change is hard to adapt too, so my guess is the negatives will out weigh the positives.
Transforming Earth’s climate seems like a high risk experiment. Finding ways to reduce CO2 emissions seems prudent.
@stevengoddard said (May 29, 2010 at 9:49 pm ): “Mike,
What part of this don’t you understand?
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2010/05/pips_anim.gif”
It is an animation, not an analysis. Also, it is two data points two years apart chosen for effect – you are cherry picking. This is not enough to draw a conclusion. Indeed even graphs showing longer term declines do not prove the decline will continue. That conclusion is based on understanding – as best we can – the dynamics of energy flow in the region. The best models we have show the decline will likely continue and accelerate. Is this certain? No! But it is the best information we have at present.
@wayne said (May 29, 2010 at 10:05 pm) : “You are somewhat right Mike, about choosing data. You look at various sets of data and ask, who do I trust. The U.S. military so far is enough for me. They are one of the last entities I put complete trust in collecting and reporting data, knowing the caliper of most of its members. I use to trust in most science data without question but no longer, especially in this ‘environmentalist’ AGW arena. And you Mike, your questioning the military as being the distorters of data with your “credible scientists” being unquestionable just tell me my decisions are correct. Keep the words flowing Mike.”
I do not have complete trust in the military (where are those Iarqi WMD?) or in scientists! If you once did, then no wonder you are disillusioned. In this case the Navy has not that I know of released a statement that Arctic sea ice volume is increasing. All we have are two imagine files picked out by A & S who clearly want to show AGW is false by any means necessary.
I’ll repeat what I just wrote above: “From my reading it seems that Arctic sea ice is in a decline. This has many causes about which there is still debate among researches. AGW is likely among these and the loss of sea ice will likely add to GW by reducing the amount of light reflected out to space. There will likely be some negative environmental effects and some positive ones. Rapid change is hard to adapt too, so my guess is the negatives will out weigh the positives.
Transforming Earth’s climate seems like a high risk experiment. Finding ways to reduce CO2 emissions seems prudent.”
Pardon me if this was addressed and I failed to spot it but if the PIPS data is so good, why divide it into only five bins for the volume calculations when the original data apparently comes in 25cm steps from 0.50 to 5.00 meters?
R Gates says:
May 31, 2010 at 8:55 am
“Actually I agree with this, and I think Steve and Anthony did an excellent job with the data they had, but the data used, PIPS 2.0 has a stated error of up to 25%, and as other posted pointed out, even large open areas of known open water were shown
as having ice …
What does the 25% error refer to? I would guess some source of uncertainty as to the nature of ice at a particular location (ice-not ice, thickness, etc.). However does this translate to a global error – for an arbitary example, if PIPS calculated a volume of 2,000,000 km3 of ice, would it be equally probable that there was either 1,600,000 or 2, 500,000 km3? No – the uncertainty would presumably be much less. Also systematic errors “come out in the wash” when you compare like with like measurements such as in a time series.
I’m not too familiar with this material – how long have PIPS 2 and 3 data been collected? A longer time series for PIPS 2 would be an advantage (although not a reason not to upgrade to a higher resolution PIPS 3).
How does this stuff keep getting circulated?
Excerpted from: R. Gates on May 31, 2010 at 8:55 am
Excerpted from: R. Gates on May 29, 2010 at 9:14 pm
The PIPS site: http://www7320.nrlssc.navy.mil/pips2/index.html
There it states:
Not “a” operational model, “the” operational model.
There is a clearly marked link there, “Info on the future PIPS 3.0”, which yields the following pop-up:
Repeated for emphasis: “The PIPS 3.0 is presently going through its final development.”
From page 33 of that pdf link, which actually yields a powerpoint presentation, yes there is a chart which has been purported to show operational status. From 2005 to 2011. Also from the presentation:
Pg 31:
Pg 28:
And pg 15:
Checking the Properties of the pdf file, we find the following for “Created” and “Modified”: Mon 12 Dec 2005 10:40:57 AM EST
So the great pdf PROOF that PIPS 3.0 is operational and PIPS 2.0 has been mothballed, to all appearances looks like an old forward-looking presentation of “works in progress” done in 2005, perhaps even 2004.
And what about that PIPS 3.0 site? Every page I look at on the site has a “Last Modified” date in 2003. This page on “Ice model Improvements” has a link for info on the “Ice Motion Assimilation Project,” which throws a “403: Forbidden” error. There are some images from testing runs available, that look somewhat old. Frankly, I don’t think anything has been done to that “official” site for ages.
So, what seems likely?
A. There is a conspiracy by the US Navy to lie to the public about PIPS 3.0 being operational and deployed since 2005, which was accidentally revealed on page 33 of a declassified powerpoint presentation after they altered the file dates and modified much text to make it appear to be a rather old document, and to hide the truth that PIPS 2.0 was mothballed in 2005 the US Navy continues to run a site that purports to show 2.0 data but apparently is either taking 3.0 results and making them look like they are from 2.0, or they are still devoting considerable resources to running the “mothballed” 2.0 to generate public consumption data for disinformation purposes that they themselves do not use.
B. PIPS 3.0, which will use the same model information as PIOMAS, ran into serious development issues, hasn’t been deployed, and 2.0 is the system currently in use.
Which, dear reader, do you think it is?
kadaka (KD Knoebel) says:
May 31, 2010 at 3:01 pm
“So, what seems likely?
A. There is a conspiracy by the US Navy to lie to the public about PIPS 3.0 being operational and deployed since 2005, which was accidentally revealed on page 33 of a declassified powerpoint presentation after they altered the file dates and modified much text to make it appear to be a rather old document, and to hide the truth that PIPS 2.0 was mothballed in 2005 the US Navy continues to run a site that purports to show 2.0 data but apparently is either taking 3.0 results and making them look like they are from 2.0, or they are still devoting considerable resources to running the “mothballed” 2.0 to generate public consumption data for disinformation purposes that they themselves do not use.
B. PIPS 3.0, which will use the same model information as PIOMAS, ran into serious development issues, hasn’t been deployed, and 2.0 is the system currently in use.
Which, dear reader, do you think it is?
_______________
Well, dear reader, before you decide which of these three falses choices you’ve been given, consider a bit more information. Here’s a link for a training manual on PIPS 3.0 from 2008:
http://www.stormingmedia.us/16/1608/A160805.html
Odd, don’t you think, that there would be a training manual for something that some would say the Navy never developed.
Also, check out page 13 of this presentation:
http://www.hycom.org/attachments/082_079_OS2008_metzger.pdf
I would just say this, dear reader, consider the extent that some people will go to in order to try and deny the obvious. The Navy moved on to better technology and left PIPS 2.0 in dustbin, for the Los Alamos CICE model, as PIOMAS did. No conspiracy, just the evolution of technology…
From: R. Gates on May 31, 2010 at 10:48 pm
Really? Who said that? PIPS 3.0 is being developed, or at least it was, that is not in dispute. But the evidence points to it still being in the development stage and never yet deployed. I already knew there was a training manual for sale, which isn’t surprising.
So, we’ll see what we can find out about the manual. First up is the seller, which says in their FAQ:
So, you have claimed PIPS 3.0 is operational and its output is classified, it’s all hush-hush secret and people aren’t supposed to know it exists. Therefore they have released an unclassified document on setting up and running PIPS 3.0 proving it exists. Right, sure…
What does the abstract say?
“Currently” sounds like a work in progress to me.
What does the PIPS 3.0 site say?
Yup, looks like a match. So this training manual corresponds to the period of development found at the official PIPS 3.0 site. So this training manual corresponds to something still in development.
Yeah, I’ve noticed.
Go to the HYCOM site, search for “pips” and you find what looks like two copies of the same powerpoint presentation, and that’s it for site. So what is on
slidepage 13?Yup, another to-do list. Go look at the next three pages as well as all of 13. Looks clear to me, they’re working to improve HYCOM by coupling it to a sea ice model, namely CICE. In this one presentation, they say in Navy terminology it’d be called PIPS.
And that’s it. There is no version number for PIPS given. Search the HYCOM site, get one presentation where they say CICE is known as PIPS in Navy-speak. And never again. Apparently there’s a misconception going around that the Navy is using PIPS 3.0 which is CICE. For this single presentation, all that is found on the HYCOM site, I see nothing to suggest this wasn’t a one-time unintentional mistake.
So, R. Gates is saying PIPS 2.0 is mothballed, left in the dustbin, not being used by the US Navy since 2005 when PIPS 3.0 went operational. His support is some mentions that really only show 3.0 exists, somewhere, out there in the world. This goes against an active and operational PIPS 2.0 site and the US Navy saying 3.0 is in final development, not deployed, as well as other evidence.
At which point I conclude R. Gates is either just doing this for fun, throwing up this ever-weaker “evidence” to amuse himself as he watches people scurry to show how his false “evidence” is false, or he really is a conspiracy
nuttheorist.To: R. Gates
Re: PIPS 3.0
Please immediately write to the US Navy, asking them to stop wasting their resources by maintaining a fake PIPS 2.0 site and spreading disinformation to disavow that PIPS 3.0 is the system they have been using since 2005. Provide your overwhelming evidence. Also send a copy to the President, as he is very concerned with wasting taxpayer money, and copies to your elected US Congressional representatives as such massive waste and fraud clearly deserves a full investigation in both houses. If you truly believe that you have discovered the truth, you owe it to the truth to do what is right.
God bless!
Is this real data, or forecast data?
And why not show a longer time frame?
Dear MACK520 – Let me see if I have this right > the Navy are not qualified climate scientists and the empirical evidence says the ice extent is growing, but the evidence must be wrong because it disagrees with “peer reviewed” MODELS??
For another take on Arctic ice, see
http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/
updated daily according to the site. I see Admiral Yin’s comment on the Law of the Sea has not gone unnoticed by Russia (irrelevant to the US as a non-ratifier). China already has the largest icebreaker in the world in the Arctic with another to come. Russia is building more nuclear powered ice breakers. Things are heating up. Still Russia expects to support China’s trans arctic shipping plans. It will be interesting to see if the US remains indifferent to all this in ACAP’s September meeting.
Thank you for helping to prove that global warming is a myth. Mack520 who said “The models contradict this. The Navy are not qualified Climate Scientists. Will you believe peer reviewed models or will you deny science?” is a typical brainwashed idiot at best, and an environmental communist supporter at worst. I am disgusted with the environmentalists and their frantic global warming scare, which does nothing other than support the move to communism. The best way to symbolize the environmental movement is to take the communist flag with the hammer and sickle and replace the color red with green. The environmental movement is the new form of communism; and those who deny this have not studied the movement and its roots in depth. Environmentalists will not be satisfied until they have taken away all of our freedoms and placed us back in caveman times. If we went back to riding around in horses and stagecoaches they would attack us for the manure our horses leave on the ground and attribute it to global warming. Furthermore, if we resorted back to caveman times they would attack us for using fire, claiming it could burn down the forests. There is no way to satisfy environmentalists. They are in fact mental, and ironically the word mental is in the word evvironMENTAList.
Keep up the good work !
Joe referred to communism four times. That’s fitting in view of developments. Russia is run by unrepentant communists and China is still communist. China is now increasing funding for Arctic research. China is betting on trans Arctic shipping to Europe – short, cheap and pirate free. Russia with its 18 ice breakers will help them (but without Law of the Sea meddling). We have one 10 year old ice breaker plus two ancient ice breakers ready for retirement but we have modern submarines. Since Arctic ice is growing, they could be wasting their efforts. My bet is that China’s Law of the Sea ploy will fail and ACAP (without China) will decide policy – but only if we get an ice free Arctic.
Monckton mentions the increase in Arctic ice in his seminars.
Check this link to find out what he says, there are ten parts and I can’t remember which part he says it so watch all the parts as it’s all very interesting.
http://www.youtube.com/user/johnpabraham#p/u/9/QpOrjaWlC_E
There are full citations so that you can check all the facts for yourself.
OK, I went and got some blog entries from a climate modeler.
First off, the earlier estimates of ice thinkness were wrong. They confused multi-year ice with thick ice. I don’t know if the charts used reflect the correction to that error.
Second, increase *coverage* of ice is a prediction of warming, not a contradiction.
Third, if you look at a longer term trend the extent goes up and down, but the trend is down.
And, finally, the prediction is that sea ice will be gone by 2035.
If your post had any validity then my mind would be put to rest .
However If the navy were so sure of the concepts that would support your theory of increasing ice then this article on the navy contradicts your theory
http://www.canada.com/Health/navy+plots+Arctic+push/2278324/story.html
All the arguments are just a moot point. We are a part of nature and if we are causing AGW, so be it. The planet will deal with it just fine. The only point of all the AGW BS is for the globalists to gain greater control of us by taxing us into extinction to “save the planet”. And for what? So polar bears can roam the planet free of human interference?
Man seperated himself from nature hundreds if not thousand s of years ago.
We can not claim a moral stand by trying to say we are a part of nature. We are not.
Conservatives are afraid of the boogeyman of higher taxes yet they would have our planet destroyed in the name of keeping their treasures.
This is so illogical as to be laughable.
So you have no place to live and no place to spend the worthless paper and metals you have gathered about you in the greedy rendition of Armageddon… So what is the point of your existence?
Conservatives fool the fundamentalist Christians into backing them when they are all about destroying Creation.
Ask yourself: What would be the opinion of the Creator for us systematically destroying what He has wrought?
The tendency to inject fear of taxes is a little old and worn.
Let’s fear rather God’s wrath.
Christian K says: “All the arguments are just a moot point. We are a part of nature and if we are causing AGW, so be it. The planet will deal with it just fine.”
Yes, the planet will deal with it just fine. Humans not so much.
This article is a wonderful example of junk science.
First and foremost. Two Years. TWO YEARS. That’s all this study even pretends to cover. An event that is occurring over several decades and centuries is bound to have blips and glitches in it, easily of a two year duration. One of the things the climate change ignorers never seem to fathom is that things don’t always happen in a straight, unidirectional way. Show me something over two decades, and maybe I’ll pay attention. This study is one step away from saying “uhhh, jeez it were awful cold last month. Can’t be no global warmin’. Yuck yuck yuck”.
The link to the navy ICEX 2009 sure doesn’t make the claims this paper does. Moreover, the “data” is a forecast–I see no convincing evidence of “real data” that this article boasts about.
The irony of the Bacon quote is priceless. These authors and their cheerleaders in the comments knew that global climate change was a “hoax” the moment Rush told them it was. I, on the other hand, really did start as a skeptic and became convinced by the real science out there (not this kind of meaningless drivel). I’d bet not one cheerleader on this site even knows enough about the debate to be able to say what property of carbon dioxide makes it a greenhouse gas. If you don’t know even the fundamentals, you’re just following the right-wing crowd. Step in line, give up any ability to think critically, or even think, and lurch zombie like in formation. Fox News will win the battle for you–no need to actually come up with anything compelling.
F. Sissler says:
You would be betting wrong, because you know less than nothing; what you believe you know is wrong. Where did you come from? One of those small alarmist echo chambers? Of course. All polemic, and nothing to back up what you say. Even though you’re a noob, and late to the party because this thread has been dormant for two days. Here, I’ll help you get up to speed, for your own benefit:
First, this isn’t a Left/Right issue, except to the extent the insane Left makes it one. No matter what time span is written about here, people like you would complain. And FYI, I like many others here do not watch or listen to either Fox or Limbaugh. I get my information right here, and you would be much better informed if you did, too.
Read the archives. The properties of CO2 have been constantly investigated and discussed here in minute detail. Reading the archives for a couple of hours a day would get you up to speed within a few months. Then you wouldn’t have to fall back on your ad hominems that take the place of rational debate.
You say, “Show me something over two decades, and maybe I’ll pay attention.” You probably won’t pay attention, but here is a thirty year set of graphs showing that the Arctic is a local climate region, not a global indicator.
And here is the past three years of Arctic June ice cover. Show us exactly where it’s declining. Be specific. Show the locations. I’ll wait.
Finally, here is the current global ice extent. As we can see, it is trending higher, and it is now above its 30-year average. None of this is a ‘forecast.’ It’s the way things are in the real world.
True believers in catastrophic AGW rely on bluster, because the facts contradict their beliefs. But the [verifiable] fact is that what we’re currently seeing in the Arctic has happened repeatedly in the past; there is nothing happening now that exceeds historical parameters. And the Antarctic is going the opposite direction, so CO2 can not be the cause. The question concerns global warming, see?
Natural climate variability explains everything we’re observing. Nothing unusual is occurring. Nothing. The climate is normal. But if you feel the need to be frightened… then carry on.
Smokey
Are you discussing climate, or weather?
Sorry, but the greenhouse property of CO2 is no longer even debated. This has been experimentally demonstrated by Tyndall et al as far back as the late 1870’s. Have you considered that maybe the “facts” you’ve learned from this one very biased website just may have been twisted, misrepresented, with conclusions specious and misleading or in the worst case, plain wrong? This is, after all, the internet!
An analysis of actively published and peer-reviewed science indicates with high repetition the conclusion that anthropogenic climate change is real and happening and these conclusions are largely supported by empirical evidence.
Why, indeed, hasn’t this “chilling” data been heralded as the end of anthropogenic climate change? Because it isn’t, of course.
R. Gates at 6:18 am: good wrap-up of the situation.
I would like to add one more observation for that time series. In the last couple of years the graph has a different character, showing much wilder anomaly changes than before, making it get a much more ragged appearance. This is indicative of ‘catastrophe’ (mathematical concept). It happens when some phenomenon is subject to threshold behaviour and is near that threshold.
In the case of Arctic ice, the threshold to watch for is in thickness over large areas when it gets to about twee feet. At this point, the ice breaks up, letting the sun do its job on the bare sea surface and accelerating the melting process vastly. The two dramatic drops of 2007 are exemplaric for this. A comparable thing can happen any moment now in view of the already extremely thin ice over Canadian of the Arctic sea.
The combination of melt and currents this year actually suggests that absolutely all of the multiyear ice, at least the ice older than two years, will disappear by early autumn. A new first for the region.