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.
Been on a hunt for indices related to the North Pacific Gyre and the Alaska Current. Fascinating stuff. Reminds me of our earlier discussion of the AO. Are these two oscillating atmospheric pressure systems located near the Bering and Fram Straits primarily responsible for Arctic Ice variability? hmmmm
http://ocean.eas.gatech.edu/npgo/
The study of salmon populations always produces interesting papers related to the North Pacific system.
http://www.nwcouncil.org/library/ocean/05_trends.htm
Pamela Gray says:
June 3, 2010 at 5:53 am
The study of salmon populations always produces interesting papers related to the North Pacific system.
http://www.nwcouncil.org/library/ocean/05_trends.htm
______________________________________________________________________
Very interesting stuff. I bookmarked both so I can read them again. I hope others come back to this article and check out your comments
Ref – Mike Lorrey says:
June 2, 2010 at 3:31 pm
Gneiss says:
June 2, 2010 at 11:57 am
“I’m impressed by how unequivocally and often WUWT has committed to the proposition that Arctic sea ice is recovering, in disagreement with most Arctic researchers. As you say, these will be pages to bookmark.”
____________
Since most arctic researchers who disagree with WUWT have consistently been shown to be wrong, very wrong, in just about everything, from causes to effects and outcomes, partly because they’ve been consistently seeing what they believe, and not believing what they see. Thats not research, its religion. True science is inherently skeptical.
______________________________________
True science is by its very nature (inherently) skeptical.
Thought I’d clarify, should it prove helpful, though somehow I doubt that it will help. We seem to have devolved into a real mess on this planet. “…in disagreement with most Arctic researchers” has no meaning, it is pure poison, it is insane! What are you trying to say, Gneiss?
When did truth become a matter of voting? What is a “researcher” but a human being looking at something more than once for longer than a minute? There are 6,500,000,000+ researchers on this planet. Are we suppose to defer to “Arctic researchers” for any reason they say? Or, perhaps, they must earn our respect by being correct about something, and on that “something” –and that something alone– we “may” defer, if we so choose. An appeal to “quantity”, an appeal to “level of education”, an appeal to “IQ”, and appeal to “expertise”, and an appeal to “anything else at all”, is insane folly without truth.
A formal education teaches us how to find some answers and it teaches us very little else (in the formal sense). Each of us are quite capable of being the dumbest dope in the room with or without forethought. Be careful who your defer to. No one deserves respect. It must constantly be earned.
Roger Knights says:
June 3, 2010 at 2:21 am
Thanks for the summary. The reason I’m amazed at the even money on the issue of arctic ice is because of the huge hype machine for global warming. If it were so damned certain that ice is retreating, a warmist can get a 50% return on investment in about 3 months. Every time I ask for a warmist to give me the extreme odds that their rhetoric implies, they back out. I would like to see this market get bigger exposure. I realize it’s a gamble because the minimum extent can be affected by so many things, but, the odds should be larger based on rhetoric alone.
The set 10±11.18 doesn’t contain all solutions to the set problem 20±10 – 10±5. That set is 10±15. The variance of that set is as described.
R. Gates
I don’t know about anyone else but every time you say something based on “models” I get the willies. What do the actual measurements tell us? Mostly they tell us that the measurements have huge uncertainties. Than people take that reality and pretend to understand these uncertainties and use this belief to make models which you then treat as more real than actual data.
How much silly does it take to set off your BS detector?
It sure would be nice for the planet if we could get some warming, that fact is, of course, lost in the entire AGW monologue.
Since 1980 the Arctic has been loosing ~340 cubic km of ice a year and according to the PIOMAS data, from where these figures are taken, this ice loss rate has been greater than 340 cubic km from 2007 onward. Using the word “gain” to describe the general condition of the Northern Cryosphere may just be a little misleading. The term “thicker”, in this context, may only apply over less extent when dealing with an overall decrease in volume.
phlogiston says:
June 3, 2010 at 2:17 am
“As climate cooling continues and deepens, the AGWers will need to find a parallel dimension in which earth is warming.”
They can join the stringtheory-bunch. Im sure thogether they can make a model that shows its warming in the 21’st dimension.
GeoFlynx says:
June 3, 2010 at 12:53 pm
“Since 1980 the Arctic has been loosing ~340 cubic km of ice a year and according to the PIOMAS data, from where these figures are taken, this ice loss rate has been greater than 340 cubic km from 2007 onward. Using the word “gain” to describe the general condition of the Northern Cryosphere may just be a little misleading. The term “thicker”, in this context, may only apply over less extent when dealing with an overall decrease in volume.”
Out of interest what are the detailed figures for ice loss per year since 1930?
If your answer is “don’t know” – then that should be your answer to what the current changes mean – you don’t know. There are continual cyclical changes in the weather and ice at the poles and the Earth’s climate is still warming from the Little Ice Age it should be expected that ice would retreat.
Some people are really hoping that the Earth goes into another ‘climate optimum’ as warm periods were called – especially those Mongolian herdsmen whose cattle died from the cold as the Earth supposedly had its warmest Jan Feb Mar ‘ever’.
Ian W said (June 2, 2010 at 1:46 pm): “Its interesting isn’t it that your reference has such a short timespan? So it gleefully shows a trend line from the 1978 just after the decade when everyone was concerned about a new ice age and then runs it to current time when everyone is talking global warming.”
That is when satellite measurements began. There are many factors that effect climate, including natural cycles, natural chaotic phenomena and now an unnatural increases in CO2 as well as other pollutants.
Say, I found this:
“The most striking feature of our pan-Arctic sea-ice cover reconstruction is the abrupt and sustained decrease in summer ice extent observed during the second half of the 20th century, which is apparently unprecedented in the previous 9 centuries. Our results suggest that as of 1985, Arctic summer sea ice cover extent dropped below the lower bound of the reconstructed minimum for the Medieval Warm Optimum (ca AD 1150). These findings support the contention that human influence on Arctic sea ice became detectable after the early 1990s.”
Reconstructing sea ice extent in the Arctic over the past ~900 years using a multi-proxy approach, Kinnard et al, Geophysical Research Abstracts, Vol. 12, EGU2010-14048, 2010.
http://meetingorganizer.copernicus.org/EGU2010/EGU2010-14048.pdf
I do not know enough to say whether this is study is correct or if it represents mainstream scientific opinion.
Wondering Aloud said (June 3, 2010 at 11:33 am): “It sure would be nice for the planet if we could get some warming, that fact is, of course, lost in the entire AGW monologue.”
While isolated extreme weather events are not sufficient to prove or disprove AGW, you should at least be careful what you wish for.
Hundreds die in Indian heat wave
http://english.vovnews.vn/Home/Hundreds-die-in-Indian-heat-wave/20106/116139.vov
“A heat wave has hit northern India over the past few days, taking hundreds of lives as temperatures reached a record high of 50C. Local officials say this is the hottest summer in the country since late 1800s.”
Note: Summer hasn’t started yet.
Gail & Pamela,
See also:
http://www.eoearth.org/article/Climate_change_effects_on_arctic_freshwater_fish_populations
http://www.aslo.org/lo/toc/vol_41/issue_5/1102.pdf
Mike:
Worldwide, freezing (colder weather in general at any levels) greatly increases death rates.
Heat waves usually increase local deaths significantly for the short duration of the heat wave – and are, of course, much more publicized by the AGW academic-taxes-enviral-governmental industry for their fund-raising purposes – but cold waves kill about 3 times more people.
There is no harm from a 2-3 degree increase in the world’s temperature over the next 200 years. None at all – and much good to be gained. Every green plant in the world today is growing 12 – 27% faster; higher, stronger, and becoming more disease-resistant by the increase in CO2 to date.
Let us hope it continues.
RACookPE1978 siad: “Worldwide, freezing (colder weather in general at any levels) greatly increases death rates.”
You should cite evidence for your facts. I did not find world data. For the US: “During 1999–2003, a total of 3,442 deaths resulting from exposure to extreme heat were reported (annual mean: 688).”
http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5510a5.htm
“During 1999–2002, a total of 4,607 death certificates in the United States had hypothermia-related diagnoses listed…”
http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5529a2.htm
Thus, it appears you are correct for the US at least. I doubt this is true for India, although I have not checked.
Your contention that: “There is no harm from a 2-3 degree increase in the world’s temperature over the next 200 years,” is of course absurd. For one thing the temp increase could well exceed 2-3 degrees C. It appears unlikely we will reduce emissions to stay below the 2 degree C target. The people whose job it is to research the environment have made clear that the negatives such as crop failures and species loss will most likely out weigh benefits: IPCC, NAS. The Stern report projected a 20% loss in global GDP. You can dismiss all this as a vast conspiracy, but you cannot find a major scientific body that backs your claim.
AndyW says:
June 2, 2010 at 10:29 pm
The explanation is El Nino
typical El Nino pattern
http://www.erh.noaa.gov/ilm/ElNino/typicalelninopattern.jpg
It is not caused by man. It is a normal El Nino pattern.
Mike.
–>
Your analysis of deaths related to heat and cold is a bit oversimplified. Exposure to extreme temps would include, for example, children left in cars, men sucked into pizza ovens and other such trifles, whereas hypothermia can certainly be induced by other factors than climate such as leaving grandma’s air conditioner on too low.
In fact, the only reasonable way to make such a conclusion would be to take the average mortality rates (from all causes) of several spring and fall seasons and compare those during winter and summer to this “baseline” to form a “death anomaly” curve and to use this curve to create best fit models with which to observe trends. This may ignore the causality, accuracy and rigor, but any trend shown is logically derived and therefore must be true.
<–
I recognize that it’s a toss-up, but I’m hoping that the Pranksters Above have taken umbrage at the warmists and put their their thumb on the scales.
I’m hoping that things will change due to the recent turn in the NAO mentioned by Gail. Joe’s opinion has restrained me from betting more than I have.
Actually, it’s a tad under 100% (a rough doubling of their bet) in a tad under five months (the settlement date is Oct. 31). The warmists have however been willing to push the odds up to 78% on the question of 2010’s being the warmest instrumental year yet (per GISS), so you have to give them that.
I too would like to publicize this market, if only as a means whereby the opposing sides can non-violently challenge and triumph over their enemies (at least for this year). I also see it as a means of avoiding the mostly insuperable obstacles and disincentives to one-on-one betting on this topic.
Roger Knights
Now that GISS has freed themselves from trying to be consistent with HadCrut, they can pretty much guarantee whatever result they want. I wouldn’t bet against a team where the head coach is also the head referee.
Mike says:
June 3, 2010 at 5:50 pm
RACookPE1978 siad: “Worldwide, freezing (colder weather in general at any levels) greatly increases death rates.”
The direct effect of heat and cold are one thing – the indirect effect is that if it gets colder the grow lines for food crops move equatorwards reducing crop yields; if it gets warmer the opposite is the case and more land is available for food production. The world is already short of food: a prolonged cold spell like the Little Ice Age could lead to large scale starvation as it would drop the world straight back into Paul Ehrlich’s population bomb scenario.
They can’t diverge too noticeably from HadCRUT and UAH or they’d be inviting a congressional investigation — or at least a loss of credibility. If they can only tweak the numbers by 2%, say, that’s not too worrisome.
Roger Knights
2% is all they need to claim a record.
Buffoon says:
June 3, 2010 at 8:32 pm
“Mike.
–>
Your analysis of deaths related to heat and cold is a bit oversimplified. Exposure to…”
I certainly was not attempting a detailed analysis. This is kind of OT, but I did see a site that gave death rates for the US by month. Death rates are higher in winter months mainly because of seasonal flu deaths are higher. Some scientists have expressed concerns about increases is death from tropical diseases in a warming word. I don’t know if fewer deaths from flu are taken into account. Personally I think the biggest health effects of AGW would be from economic losses resulting in less spending on healthcare especially in poorer countries. But, I’m just speculating.
Mike
I understand. Detailed and thorough analysis of the real world is usually difficult and fraught with too many factors that are non-germaine to the issue being tested, so snippets can prove insightful as “proof” of a larger truth which must have some proportionality to smaller facts.
I would posit that if the “tropical diseases” from your anecdote include malaria, it has been much more than an expressed concern. Also, it has been far from a detailed analysis, being more in-fact a snippet from which concern may be drawn.
Your last speculation quite literally shocked me. I don’t believe I have seen a single dissenting opinion, warmist or “skeptic,” to the statement that CO2 prevention measures would result in a net shrinking of economy. Warmist seem to accept it as “just desserts,” where “skeptics” seem to object to it as the single objectionable part of the agenda (aside from bad science,) but (to my experience) no-one seems to disagree. It was the subject of the proposition during the unimpeachable Oxford debate.
I, in fact, would speculate economic losses stemming from the global shrinking of economy based on green movements (using Spain as a prototype) creates more healthcare gap than does a global higher average temperature.
And yes, that reference to the Oxford debate can be construed as citation OR an appeal to authority (it was intended as a citation to reference,) thus making me a scientist or a schill. Schroedingerly, I may be in either state at the current time, or might indeed be influenced by external behaviour, or even the identity of the person making the observation, in an iterative irony it is myself this time, thus making the question of which it was quite difficult. We may, however, predict a future choice on my part through this simple 3 step plan:
1) Measure my past behaviour by proxy, which may include character witness, previous examples of either behaviour or reconstructions based on presumed moral character.
2) Further, create a model of my reaction to such situations using the simplest regression possible. Must have at least 2 points which intersect a graphical representation of your model.
3) Use this model to make a future prediction as to whether my next contentious appeal to authority OR citation to reference, will in fact be either. Discard the result of the current situation (as given by me at the start of this post) if it does not fit the model by quoting “model inaccuracies” but posit your model as a reliable indicator of “future trends.”
Hopefully the brilliance, sarcasm and snark of these last three entries (inclusive) made sense to somebody.