By Steve Goddard
Over the last three years, Arctic Ice has gained significantly in thickness. The graph above was generated by image processing and analysis of PIPS maps, and shows the thickness histogram for June 1 of each year since 2007.
The blue line represents 2008, and the most abundant ice that year was less than 1.5 metres thick. That thin ice was famously described by NSIDC as “rotten ice.” In 2009 (red) the most common ice had increased to more than 2.0 metres, and by 2010 (orange) the most common ice had increased to in excess of 2.75 metres thick.
We have seen a steady year over year thickening of the ice since the 2007 melt season. Thinner ice is more likely to melt during the summer, so the prognosis for a big melt looks much less likely than either of the previous two summers. More than 70% of the ice this year is thicker than 2.25 metres thick. By contrast, more than half of the ice was thinner than 2.0 metres in 2008.
So why did 2008 start out with so little thick ice? Because during the summer of 2007 much of the ice melted or was compressed by the wind. During the winter of 2007-2008, much of the remaining thick ice blew out into the North Atlantic and melted. So by the time that summer 2008 arrived, there was very little ice left besides rotten, thin ice. Which led to Mark Serreze’ famous “ice free North Pole bet.”
Can we find another year with similar ice distribution as 2010? I can see Russian ice in my Windows. Note in the graph below that 2010 is very similar to 2006.
2006 on the left. 2010 on the right.
2006 had the highest minimum (and smallest maximum) in the DMI record. Like 2010, the ice was compressed and thick in 2006.
http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/plots/icecover/icecover_2010.png
Conclusion : Should we expect a nice recovery this summer due to the thicker ice? You bet ya. Even if all the ice less than 2.5 metres thick melted this summer, we would still see a record high minimum in the DMI charts.
Mark Serreze has a different take for 2010:
“Could we break another record this year? I think it’s quite possible,” said Mark Serreze of the National Snow and Ice Data Center in Boulder, Colo.
Bookmark this post for reference in September.
———————————————————-
“The report of my death was an exaggeration”
– Mark Twain
==================================
Addendum By Steve Goddard 6/3/10:
Anyone betting on the minimum extent needs to recognize that summer weather can dramatically effect the behaviour of the ice. The fact that the ice is thicker now is no guarantee that it won’t shrink substantially if the summer turns out to be very warm, windy or sunny. Joe Bastardi believes that it will be a warm summer in the Arctic. I’m not a weather forecaster and won’t make any weather predictions.
I don’t see a warm Northern Pacific. But if I did, I would suspect natural climate variability.
To wit:
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Newsroom/view.php?id=22759
Mike says:
June 2, 2010 at 6:30 pm
What are we to believe? How can this ‘cognitive dissonance’ be resolved?
Look at the graphs. You’ll suddenly be seeing 20/20.
So, I went over to intrade.com to look at their climate speculation market (thanks Roger Knights). What do I find? About even money on whether minimum arctic ice extent 2010 will be greater than 2009. https://www.intrade.com/jsp/intrade/common/c_cd.jsp?conDetailID=720038&z=1275533275642
Here is the curious thing…. they’re using JAXA as their source. So, the competition is really, what will JAXA say about sea ice minimum extent. It’s an interesting choice to use JAXA. Are they less exposed to political pressure? Does anyone have comments about this bet?
This is what Joe Bastardi says.
http://www.accuweather.com/ukie/bastardi-europe-blog.asp
“FRIDAY MAY 7
THE STATE OF THE WORLD (OKAY, ICE MELT, GLOBAL TEMP).
ICE IN A NOSE DIVE, GLOBAL TEMPS START THEIR FALL.
I publicly stated earlier that global sea ice will take another beating this year, descending below levels it was at last summer, and perhaps 2008, but I don’t think it will get back to 2007 levels. This is the natural offshoot of the El Nino, BUT REMEMBER it will come roaring back this winter, and the melt season next summer (2011) will have it at higher levels than the melt season of 2009. In any case, looking at the sites that monitor this, we see them all in agreement now, the ice is crashing. Remember the forecast I made was done so before this started! I am simply calling ’em as I see them.”
While I like the reasoning of Steve Goddard a lot, if I understand well, Arctic summer ice melt depends mostly on wind patterns and the warmth of the water that flows from the Atlantic Ocean into the Arctic Ocean.
Joe Bastardi expects more than average warm water to flow into the Arctic Sea and melt the ice from below. If by chance that is combined with wind patterns that break up the ice and pushes it into the Atlantic, summer 2010 might well be another 2007.
I still think a prediction should take into consideration all the relevant factors:
wind patterns,
temperature of the water of the Atlantic Ocean,
the amount of warm water flowing from the Atlantic into the Artic Ocean,
thickness of the ice.
I think the Mark Twain quote sounds better this way:
“I find reports of my death to have been greatly exaggerated”
Caleb says:
June 2, 2010 at 7:06 pm
Mr. Bastardi did comment on what he surmised the ice extent would be. He stated it seemed likely to be lower than last summer and the summer before, but not as low as 2007. Most of the ice-loss would be on the Atlantic side, due to the warm AMO. However he also stated quite firmly the recovery next winter would more than make up for the ice-loss. In the long term he expects increasing ice and cooling, and describes the current melting as “one step back before two steps forward.”
In my opinion his videos are well worth the 29 cents a day I pay to view the Accuweather professional site.
__________________________________________________________________________
Yes, but since then the warm NAO has flipped to negative
http://www.cpc.noaa.gov/products/precip/CWlink/ENSO/verf/new.nao.shtml#current
And the overall picture shows SST of the Atlantic and Indian oceans headed down
http://i39.tinypic.com/m7wf7t.jpg
As is the global SST
http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/AMSRE-SST-Global-and-Nino34-thru-May-19-2010.gif
“Loehle, Craig. 2009. Cooling of the global ocean since 2003. Energy & Environment 20(1&2): 99-102.
ABSTRACT
Ocean heat content data from 2003 to 2008 (4.5 years) were evaluated for trend. A trend plus periodic (annual cycle) model fit with R2 = 0.85. The linear component of the model showed a trend of -0.35 (±0.2) x 1022 Joules per year. The result is consistent with other data showing a lack of warming over the past few years.”
http://www.ncasi.org//Publications/Detail.aspx?id=3152
From the ‘its worse than we thought’ brigade. Its not extent that matters its thickness…er…its not thickness its…er… ooh look over there.
I notice an unwillingness to show images of an increasing thickness in the artic by the media, the Catlin promised us that it was worse than they thought and the media duly reported thin ice. It seems that the same media is no so keen on reporting the actual truth now, funny that.
Our resident warmista R Gates raises the glass to his blind and says I see no increase in mass/thickness, funny that people only see what they want to see.
The goal posts have been shifted so many times that the media no longer knows where the pitch is let alone where the goal is located. Still when the ice has been pushed up into one big pile they will report on the lack of extent and ignore the thickness of remaining ice.
It simply has to be worse than we thought or the spell will break.
Mike says:
June 2, 2010 at 6:30 pm
If you were to take your pizza dough that is rolled out, fold it in half twice, would the volume decrease, increase or be the same?
Why would the Arctic Sea Ice be any different if the forces up there bunched it up?
2007 was unique in that the thicker ice got blown out to the Atlantic and melted.
It’s now 2010, and the ice is getting thick again. Mass has increased.
If it doesn’t get blown out this year, it will get thicker still. More mass increase.
Interesting update. This is a regularly occurring post and would add to our discussion I think. Very detailed but not mathematically technical.
http://ice-glaces.ec.gc.ca/prods/ARCTIC001/20100602000000_ARCTIC001_0005009206.pdf
In 2007, the alarmists would say Look, the sky is falling, the area of Arctic ice decreased!
When it increased, they would say: Look, the area may have returned but the sky is falling because the thickness of the ice has surely dropped.
I wonder what they will say now. The only thing I am sure is that the statement will contain “the sky is falling”. 😉
Considering the Arctic and Antarctic TOTAL ice area is sitting on the average spot on I for one am not going to concern myself about which is ahead this year – it simply doesn’t matter. If the average of BOTH the Arctic and Antarctic sea ice extent was down then I would be interested in knowing: A) how much, B) has it ever been this low before (averaged together) leading to C) what would indicate that the trend is increasing, decreasing or is just a wobble due to various climate influences.
I will say that I am seeing a bit more ad hominem comments on both sides – neither of which improves my respect for the parties involved and it detracts from the validity of their discussions. Who wants to listen to children squabbling?
Thanks for that Pamela, it does point out why there is so much free water in Hudson Bay for instance this year already, the warmer temperatures were well described over the winter.
Bremen page has got stuck sadly.
http://www.iup.physik.uni-bremen.de:8084/amsr/amsre.html
Andy
stevengoddard says:
June 2, 2010 at 4:17 pm
Does “deliver” mean theoretical performance or usable performance? Assuming theoretical, the top system 15 years ago was a Fujitsu system in Japan at 235.79 GFlops. It was November 1996 when 600 GFlops was surpassed with another
Japanese system with 614.4 GFlops. It had 2048 PA-RISC CPUs running at 150 Mhz, and 0.3 GFlops each. See http://top500.org/list/1996/11/100
The latest list was just released, the fastest theoretical system is a Chinese system with 120640 cores and 2984.30 TFlops (2,984,300 GFlops), but the efficiency is pretty low. The highest performing system is a Cray at Oak Ridge with 224162 cores, and achieving 1759.00 TFlops of a theoretical peak 2331.00 and draws 6950.60 KW. See http://top500.org/list/2010/06/100
Perhaps you could do a linear fit to the peaks of the three years and then make a prediction as to the year the Arctic Ocean will be frozen from surface to seabed!
Smokey said:
June 2, 2010 at 4:51 pm
“If you were ever to admit there’s an Antarctic, you could see that the its ice growth is greater than the Arctic decline.” You then link to a graph but that only shows 2 years, the trend over a longer period is less than the Arctic.
Andy
Just like Al Gore, the Norwegian government say one thing, and do something else.
Just look here;
http://www.nrk.no/nyheter/distrikt/ostlandssendingen/1.4385097
Now, who would build an opera like that, if they believed sea-levels would rise?
But then again, it seems Mr. Stoere, the Norwegian foreign minister, is a good friend to Mr. Gore.
And yet, they force every town to make cathastrophy plans regarding seal level rise….
Richard M says:
June 2, 2010 at 5:02 pm
“I find it very humorous the confidence exuded by those who think this year’s melt will be significant. Having been wrong two years in a row you’d think they would have some humility. Nope, not a bit. Same old references to the same old science that got it wrong both years.
Of course, just like the blind squirrel, they could find the nut this year, but most likely it would be due to weather and nothing else.”
I don’t find it humorous, just sad. None of the so called ‘experts’ predicted last years Arctic sea ice recovery correctly, with all of them shooting too low.
The problem we all have with predicting the amount of ice is that this seasonal process is driven by deterministic chaos, so trying to use trends to predict future levels is a fruitless task. These ‘experts’ fail to understand this year after year and get fooled every time. Using such a short 30y period to decide what is ‘normal’ only compounds their folly, as history shows massive variation is actually the norm.
The only way to know what sea ice cover will be at the end of the melt is to observe the event as it unfolds – I use the following info to watch as it happens:-
http://img42.imageshack.us/img42/7303/deetmp4118.png
http://arctic-roos.org/observations/satellite-data/sea-ice/ice-area-and-extent-in-arctic
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/data/teledoc/nao.timeseries.gif
“I don’t believe the “But this month is the HOTTEST on record” meme, seeing how they’re throwing away all the thermometers that give the real picture until they’re left with just one, which just happens to be in somebody’s shirt pocket).”
————————————–
And he happens to be on the beach in Texas!
The comments here and at Climate Progress warrant a very specific and highly public bet on this year’s minimum ice extent. The parameters of the bet need to be set very specifically, so there is no wiggling after the outcome is decided. Are the terms listed at Intrade specific enough? I couldn’t find them, but a previous poster mentioned that JAXA was the agreed upon data source. Has anyone from WUWT specifically proposed such a wager to Climate Progress or any other highly public AGW proponent?
Steve, perhaps an even more interesting study;
compare the ice melted in situ with the ice flushed out through the strait between Svalbard and Greenland and melted south of the Arctic Ocean.
Pseudoscience always takes refuge in non-testability.
AGWers are arguing that all their missing heat is hiding:
(a) in the Arctic, few and sparse temperature sensors, very limited knowledge of what’s going on
(b) the bottom of the ocean, zero knowledge of what is going on.
As climate cooling continues and deepens, the AGWers will need to find a parallel dimension in which earth is warming.
JAXA’s results are reported a day or so sooner than other sources (important to bettors), and it uses a more modern and reliable satellite. The other satellite was down for five days about a month ago.
You can read the terms (after navigating via “Climate and Weather” to “Arctic Ice Extent”) by clicking on the purple heading line “MIN.ARCTIC.ICE:2010>2009”, which takes you here:
https://www.intrade.com/jsp/intrade/common/c_cd.jsp?conDetailID=720038&z=1275555182467
Then click on “Contract Specific Rules”, which pops up the following text box:
Each contract is worth $10. If someone is “asking” 45 for a contract, it means 45%, so it costs $4.50, and ten of them cost $45.
The Arctic ice contract opened around May 10 at 50, fell to 35, climbed to 44, fell to 40, and is now being offered at about 45. (The chart of the price history of contracts is displayed when the purple bet-name is clicked, as mentioned above.) I’ve bet over $100 on this year’s Arctic being icier than last year’s.
Here’s something I posted about a week ago that gives more detail on the mechanics of betting there: The odds at Intrade aren’t set by the organization itself, which is a mere marketplace where individual bettors posts bids and offers (sell-short bids, in effect) on certain propositions, similar to bids and offers placed on the stock market. (I.e., the bettor specifies the price level and quantity of his bid/offer.) If a bid or offer is tempting enough to another bettor, he “covers” it, and the price at which he does so establishes the latest odds.
For instance, on the Greater Arctic Ice This Sept.? proposition, I currently have a bid at 40% for five $10 “contracts.” (All contracts are for $10.) I had to post a margin of $20 (40% * 5 * $10 = 20). If someone wants to take my bet at those odds, he posts a “sell” order at 40 for 5 and posts margin of $30 (60% * 5 * $10 = 30). In October Intrade settles the bet one way or the other and places $50 in the winner’s account. That’s one nice thing about the site — the feeling that I’m punishing the other side (not a bookie).
Another nice thing is that if you change your mind on a bet you can sell it (or try to) at a partial loss before it goes totally bad. For instance, I could place a sell offer on my position at 30 and lose only a quarter ($5) of my bet ($20). You don’t have to put up extra cash to hedge yourself by buying a bet on the other side, the way you have to with a bookie. (Of course, Intrade charges commissions, but they aren’t onerous.)
PS: If someone wants to re-post the above elsewhere, feel free.
Ric Werme
Many grid-based data parallel scientific models can be mapped to GPUs at close to 100% efficiency. The trick is to make sure that arrays are organised so that all memory accesses can be done in parallel. – i.e. thread 0 accesses bank 0, thread 1 accesses bank 1, etc.
Anyone betting on this needs to recognize that summer weather can dramatically effect the behaviour of the ice. The fact that the ice is thicker now is no guarantee that it won’t shrink substantially if the summer turns out to be warm, windy or sunny.
Joe Bastardi believes that it will be a warm summer in the Arctic.