By Steve Goddard
“In everyone’s life, there is a summer of ’42 + 65”
By now, we have all been bludgeoned senseless with talk of how Arctic Ice dramatically declined in 2007 – “much faster than the models.” We were told by the experts that this rapid decline would lead to an ice-free Arctic in 2008, 2013, 2030, etc. – not to mention 1969 and 1922. I don’t buy it. The idea of an ice-free Arctic seems implausible to me without a dramatic change in climate.
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/seaice.anomaly.arctic.png
Let’s start by looking at what really happened in 2007. The graph below (calculated from PIPS maps) shows the average ice thickness in the Arctic Basin for 2006 – 2008. Note that the average thickness of the ice in 2007 was fairly constant through the spring and summer. In fact, 2007 had the largest average summer thickness. This is solid evidence that the low extent in 2007 was primarily due to horizontal melt and compaction of the ice, rather than vertical thinning.
Given that there was no change in average thickness, in order for the ice to disappear it would have to melt horizontally. As you can see in the graph below, the volume loss came to a hard stop in early September. The sun is too low by September for significant melt to proceed. There just isn’t enough time in the Arctic summer for all the ice to melt.
2006 was highest in the DMI record and had 30% greater summer extent than 2007 – but the 2007 late summer ice was almost 20% thicker. 2007 was never in any danger of a complete meltdown.
http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/icecover.uk.php
The video below shows the thickening of the ice in 2007 as it compressed horizontally from the wind.
The next problem with an “ice-free Arctic” is that summer temperatures north of 80N have not changed over the last 50 years. You can see that in the DMI graphs. If anything, recent years have had colder summers near the pole. High Arctic warming has occurred in other seasons, but not during the summer. The melt season is very short at the pole, and some summers have no melt.
GISS doesn’t have much data north of 75N, but the few data points they do have show little or no summer warming.
In 2008, the North Pole started with first year ice. Mark Serreze bet that this would lead to an ice-free pole. It didn’t happen, in spite of relatively warm temperatures at the pole.
In summary:
- An ice free pole could not occur without dramatic summer warming.
- There has been almost no summer warming in the high Arctic over the last 70 years.
- The melt season is too short to have an ice free Arctic. Roger Pielke Sr. did a study which shows that the length of the melt season has not changed significantly.
- 2008 started with first year ice at the pole. It was a warm summer at the pole, and the ice did not disappear. There will never be a summer which starts with younger ice than 2008.
- Linear projections of an ice-free pole are incorrect. It is much more likely that the slope will tail off asymptotically.
- I propose that 2008 ice volume was close to the theoretical minimum, until Arctic summer temperatures increase dramatically.
- Dress appropriately the high Arctic. It is too cold for a bikini.
(Everyone agrees that PIPS2 is the best available data source of historical ice thickness. Please don’t start another conversation about that topic.)
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Tom P.,
Just saw your thickness and volume plots for 2007 and 2008. It looks like fine work.
Please continue your efforts with the 2009 data and the first 5 months of 2010 and overlay all the thickness data on one plot and the volume data on the other. I’m interested to see if the thickness and volume trends since 2008 using your methods.
For some reason all the papers stop at 2008.
Tom P
Sea ice concentrations in the Arctic Basin are close to 100%.
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/ARCHIVE/20100609.jpg
Multiplying by 1.0 would not change the numbers, even if your incorrect claim that PIPS doesn’t consider concentration was true.
Anne van der Bom says:
June 9, 2010 at 11:38 pm
If find the reassuring tone of the article at odds with reality. This is an up-to-date chart of sea ice volume anomaly from the Polar Science Center.
As can be clearly seen, the volume loss has sped up since 2007.
____________
Steve doesn’t consider the PIOMAS model as valid, and would rather base his arguments on the PIPS 2.0 model, which even the NIC doesn’t take seriously, though we see in the latest NIC update for June, PIOMAS is mentioned. You can’t fault Steve’s general train of logic, but his basis (in using PIPS 2.0 data) is suspect at best.
The next few years are going to be very telling. Steve et. al want to base some big recovery on a modest recovery in the summer minimum over the past few years, when as has been pointed out by one of our resident Ph.D. experts, we actually saw more ice lost from March to Sept in 2008 than 2007 because 2008 started from a higher level.
Personally, I think PIOMAS is probably closer to the truth of what’s going on in the Arctic, and we must anxiously await CryoSat 2 to start putting out thickness data to confirm that. While I’ve stated for many months that I think this summer’s minimum will be less than 2008-2009, I’m not sure we’ll see us quite get as low as 2007, but we could if current trends continue! Be that as it may, I do think we’ll see at least one new record low before 2015, and it could be a dramatic one, as we’ll be seeing the solar max arrive in 2013 with increasing solar irradiance and lower GCR’s– all of which on top of the general forcing of GHG, could tip the scale enough for a dramatic summer low before 2015 (like 2.0-2.5 million sq. km). This would of course be very problematic for those who remain skeptical of an ice free summer Arctic Ocean this century.
stevengoddard says:
June 10, 2010 at 6:09 am
CO2
“You are pulling the usual straw man, arguing about different points than the article. I am discussing thickness and volume in the Arctic Basin, which are key factors in determining the minimum.”
It seems to me that the sea ice extent ‘recovered’ is utterly debunked. The new diversion is sea ice volume using PIPS modelling (not data) that suits the purpose of claiming more ice volume, when there isn’t. The argument goes round and round turning a blind eye to errors. I am skeptical of self-created graphs. The sea ice thickness in the basin has thinned dramatically and thus I agree that the ice volume in the arctic basin are a key factor in determining the minimum volume and to a lesser extent the sea ice extent.
Ice outside the Arctic Basin must melt first to 15% or less, in order for the melt to reduce extent.(measuring criteria) Once first year ice is gone the melt will slow as far as extent is concerned, but volume reduction will continue. Just because the sun goes in late winter, does not mean the ice melt stops from below. Wherever snow covers the ice the ice thickness growth slows dramatically even with much lower air temperatures. As the Arctic Ocean warms, the melt season will (and already has) become longer.
Straw man?
Introduction;
By now, we have all been bludgeoned senseless with talk of how Arctic Ice dramatically declined in 2007 – “much faster than the models.” We were told by the experts that this rapid decline would lead to an ice-free Arctic in 2008, 2013, 2030, etc. – not to mention 1969 and 1922. I don’t buy it. The idea of an ice-free Arctic seems implausible to me without a dramatic change in climate.
” told by the experts”, which experts and how many. “would lead to an ice-free Arctic “, isn’t this usually preceeded with the proviso “if this trend continues”. Projections using “if” are not claims.
http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/2008/12/04/are-there-long-term-trends-in-the-start-of-freeze-up-and-melt-of-arctic-sea-ice/
There is a lot more ice now than two years ago. Why are some of you in such desperate denial?
stevengoddard says:
June 10, 2010 at 6:19 am
Phil
Do you think that PIPS does not consider concentration when calculating the ice thickness of a grid cell?
I’m sure they do, I’m not so sure that you know how they do so. I suggested that you run a comparison calculation to show that you’re able to reproduce PIPS volume calculations. So far you have not done so, without that calibration I don’t take your numbers seriously (PIOMAS has done such a calibration with direct measurements).
Regardless – ice concentration in the Arctic Basin (in regions which PIPS shows ice) is close to 100%.
Close “only counts with hand grenades and horseshoes”, it’s currently less than 90%.
Over at the new science-based Arctic Sea Ice site, a discussion of Linday and Zhang’s predictions about September sea ice based on PIOMAS:
“And thus Lindsay predicts extent in September to be 4.44 +/- 0.39 million square km. According to Lindsay his colleague Zhang uses ‘quite a different method’ for his prediction, which currently is 4.7 million square km. Mind you, these predictions are updated at the end of each month. For instance, at the end of April Linday’s (very educated) guess was a September sea ice extent of 5.12 +/- 0.42 million sq km.”
http://neven1.typepad.com/blog/2010/06/predictions-lindsay-and-zhang.html
Note that Linsay and Zhang’s predictions refer to *average* September ice extent, not the transient minimum, which is considered less predictable.
Funny how it all boils down to two poles, ice or no ice, in reversed order when the article just point out the ludicrous alarmist bs what-if take on arctic sea ice.
No matter what the available observed data tells for a story, some nut job posed this, slightly simplified, question as more valid research to hand over taxpayers money to, “What if the arctic become ice free in the next 100 years?”, which in less then 20 years became “arctic will be ice free in 2009, oops sorry 2013, ok maybe not, but surly by 2030 or at least before 2050, or perhaps by 2090 like we said from the beginning.” And the defenders of the faith has gone from “no arctic ice to ice free but not necessarily meaning that ice free meant 100% ice free, after all it could also mean more ice, just like global warming could mean global cooling when we want it too.”
Soon they’ll probably start alarming people, again there by completing the circle, about the impending ice age, but with a twist, due to global warming. Because just what if it happens in the next 100 years, so hand over the tax-cash.
[snip try rephrasing that – mod]
stevengoddard says:
June 10, 2010 at 7:09 am
Tom P
Sea ice concentrations in the Arctic Basin are close to 100%.
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/ARCHIVE/20100609.jpg
Why would you show the low resolution map rather than the high resolution one?
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/NEWIMAGES/arctic.seaice.color.000.png
Multiplying by 1.0 would not change the numbers, even if your incorrect claim that PIPS doesn’t consider concentration was true.
The claim is that you don’t consider concentration.
Amino Acids in Meteorites says:
June 9, 2010 at 8:15 pm
If you look at the graphs and satellite images you can see that there has been an increase in Arctic ice since 2007. That ‘ice free’ prediction is doing very poorly. Ice is increasing not decreasing.
Perhaps you were still thinking about March and April ?
As of yesterday, the “recovery” in Arctic sea ice extent from 2007 is -425,781km²
http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/seaice/extent/plot.csv
06,09,2010,10468438
06,09,2007,10894219
Here, you can see it better graphically:
http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/seaice/extent/AMSRE_Sea_Ice_Extent_L.png
Phil
So you want me to double count concentration? Doesn’t sound like a very smart thing to do.
Suppose for a minute that the Navy was not bright enough (as some suggest) to use concentration when making their ice maps. Since concentration is higher this year than previous years – that would skew the 2010 data higher.
A picture is worth a thousand words.
Some people here are quoting as contrary evidence, the same experts who forecast an ice free Arctic in 2013 – LOL ………….
Maybe an asteroid will strike the Arctic in 2012? Or perhaps the earth’s interior will melt, like in the movie 2012?
Michael says:
June 9, 2010 at 8:29 pm
Mycelium use CO2 and scrub it out of the atmosphere converting it to food….
______________________________________________________________________
If you want to do something useful with CO2, bottle it up and spread it over crops during the day.
“”Response of Crops to Free Air CO2 Enrichment (FACE)” is research that continues large cooperative experiments to determine the effects of CO2 supplied to the free air in an open agricultural field on crop growth, physiology, water use, soil soil nitrogen transformations, and soil carbon sequestering….” Response of Crops to Free Air CO2 Enrichment
Roald says:
June 10, 2010 at 2:40 am
There’s no hint whatsoever that the entire Arctic was going to be ice-free. And several posters have pointed out on the latest Arctic sea ice news thread that Goddard can’t get his PIPS ice concentrations right.
So who’s the troll now
_____________________________________________________________________
“There’s no hint whatsoever that the entire Arctic was going to be ice-free?????”
China prepares for an ice free Arctic
NOAA : Arctic Ice free in 30 years?
2009 National Geographic: Arctic Largely Ice Free in Summer Within Ten Years?
Arctic to be ice-free in summer in 20 years: scientist | Reuters (2009)
China prepares for an ice-free Arctic: is books.sipri.org/files/insight/SIPRIInsight1002.pdf
or http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=3&ved=0CCYQFjAC&url=http%3A%2F%2Fbooks.sipri.org%2Ffiles%2Finsight%2FSIPRIInsight1002.pdf&ei=qQYRTPW1E4T6lwfN392JCA&usg=AFQjCNHFB4Y6CfiRqC3lpwECgkSLWjppPA
Sphaerica wrote:
“I’m afraid your phrasing is ambiguous. Are you defining the pole as that single point at 180˚ N, or some area around it, or is this just a moniker for the Arctic Sea? ”
I thought the pole was at 90 degrees N.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/06/06/wuwt-arctic-sea-ice-news-8/#comment-405109
Anne van der Bom says: June 9, 2010 at 11:38 pm
If find the reassuring tone of the article at odds with reality. This is an up-to-date chart of sea ice volume anomaly from the Polar Science Center.
As can be clearly seen, the volume loss has sped up since 2007.
You’re late to the party. Do you believe a model or actual observations. Here’s a primer (and 7 more before that).
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/06/06/wuwt-arctic-sea-ice-news-8/#comments
Steve,
“So you want me to double count concentration?”
You don’t include concentration at all – that is why your calculations have a a negative correlation with Posey’s published volume figures while mine have a correlation of 0.99999.
Why are you having such difficulty in understanding your error?
No. Exactly what part of it am I not allowed to say?
[snip ~dbs, mod.] It fits in well at WUWT.
Reply: Since you don’t understand, it’s like this. If you invite somebody into your home, and they call you names, insult your intelligence, demean your family, etc. Would you not do at least one of the following?
1- Ask them to rephrase it?
2- Ask them to apologize?
3- Ask them to leave?
See the policy page here http://wattsupwiththat.com/policy/
According the the comments system, you’ve made 167 comments that have been posted. 1 rephrase request in 167 is not unreasonable.
– mod
Anu says: June 10, 2010 at 8:05 am
Perhaps you were still thinking about March and April ?
As of yesterday, the “recovery” in Arctic sea ice extent from 2007 is -425,781km²
http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/seaice/extent/plot.csv
Oh my, you alarmists sure have trouble with the minus sign. No wonder you’re so “negative” on the state of the cyrosphere. This shows approximately + ~425,781 km\2, as of yesterday.
http://arctic-roos.org/observations/satellite-data/sea-ice/ice-area-and-extent-in-arctic
For the record, I am taking the PIPS maps and using their data without modification.
Some posters here insist that I should corrupt the PIPS data with inappropriate manipulations, which would actually bump the 2010 numbers upwards relative to all earlier years.
I’d like to have an intelligent conversation with people who want to discuss science, but it appears that a number of people are insistent on drowning out the science.