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.)
167 comments? sphaerica is doing yeoman’s work for RC.
CO2 says: June 10, 2010 at 7:34 am
” 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.
How about the words potential, maybe, possibly, probable, etc. How many times are these words, including “if”, used in the 2007 IPCC novel? But you believe that now, don’t you. Hmmmm.
@ur momisugly Gail Combs says: June 10, 2010 at 8:36 am
““There’s no hint whatsoever that the entire Arctic was going to be ice-free?????”
China prepares for an ice free Arctic (…)”
Oh, come on. You know perfectly well that I was referring to that 1922 article, which Steve cited to highlight that experts predicting an ice-free Arctic have always been wrong. Only problem is that this particular article doesn’t say anything about that.
I have little doubt that the Arctic is going to be ice-free some time. The changes happening over the last few years seem to indicate that it’s going to be sooner rather than later. Call me a sceptic, but I can’t share the optimism of many people here who think that the ice has recovered. I find it telling that especially the US Navy is taking a faster melt off into consideration. They probably have better data and prediction models since they care a lot about their submarines and the sailors aboard.
stevengoddard says:
June 10, 2010 at 8:07 am
Phil
So you want me to double count concentration? Doesn’t sound like a very smart thing to do.
No I want you to account for it properly in your calculations.
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.
Really?
http://iup.physik.uni-bremen.de:8084/amsredata/asi_daygrid_swath/l1a/n6250/2009/jun/asi-n6250-20090608-v5_nic.png
http://iup.physik.uni-bremen.de:8084/amsredata/asi_daygrid_swath/l1a/n6250/2010/jun/asi-n6250-20100608-v5_nic.png
stevengoddard says:
June 10, 2010 at 9:28 am
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.
No we want you to understand the science!
Take a lake 1km^2 half covered with 1m thick ice, how thick’s the ice?
Same sized lake completely covered with ice 0.6m thick, which lake has the thicker ice?
PIPS has a 0.28º grid cell half filled with 4m thick ice do they report the thickness for that cell as 4 m or 2m, do you know? Can you reference the answer?
Smokey says: June 10, 2010 at 6:39 am:
As another reader pointed out, in Sphaerica’s blog comments, Susan Anderson says:
Forgot to say, via RealClimate (your #240, which unfortunately did not close the subject) and DotEarth, which is struggling with the usual cloaca of denial. I love the idiot savants … and appreciate your hard work on WUWT.
Trolling on behalf of RealClimate is hard work.
I thought you’d like that!
Us “idiot savants” need to “cloaca” as often as possible ;~D.
Phil
Please tell us exactly how you would corrupt the PIPS data to suit your purposes.
stevengoddard says:
June 10, 2010 at 9:28 am
For the record, I am taking the PIPS maps and using their data without modification…
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.
Most people are immune to facts and rely on authority for all of their beliefs and opinions. The possibility of freedom and responsibility for their own thoughts terrifies them.
Steve,
I’m not sure if you will understand this point, but why do you think your volume calculations are so much noisier than mine? Hint: ice volumes, which are dependent on energy input, should change relatively smoothly. That is if the ice volumes are properly calculated.
“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.”
Your miscalculations of ice volume, just the latest in your series of errors, are adding nothing to science.
stevengoddard says:
June 10, 2010 at 10:07 am
Phil
Please tell us exactly how you would corrupt the PIPS data to suit your purposes.
Unlike you I wouldn’t, try answering my question now.
Phil
Even if the Navy was as clueless as you insist, you are arguing over the difference between maybe 95% and 100% concentration in your Bremen maps – which is well outside the error of the thickness data anyway.
stevengoddard says:
June 10, 2010 at 8:43 am
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/06/06/wuwt-arctic-sea-ice-news-8/#comment-405109
julienne says:
June 7, 2010 at 9:47 pm
“…. For the record, I am not convinced that the PIOMAS results showing less ice volume today than a couple of years ago are correct. Since there was more survival of first-year ice the last 2 summers it would make sense that the overall thickness (and hence volume) is higher today than in May of 2008 for example. Even so, the Arctic Ocean saw more depletion of the oldest ice types out of the Arctic Basin this past winter (export out of Fram Strait was normal), so it is likely that the ice volume (and hence ice thickness) remain anomalously low.”
———————————————-
The truth is we don’t actually know if PIOMAS volume estimates are correct without doing real comparisons to observations. Yes, the model seemed to perform well for the few years of comparisons they made with ICESat data, so perhaps their results are close to reality.
Unfortunately, we don’t have Arctic-wide ice thickness observations at the moment (radar altimetry measurements don’t cover the entire Arctic) in order to make a longer inter-comparison. I will say however that the PIPS2.0 model estimates of ice thickness are too large when you compare them to actual observations from either radar or laser altimeter ice thickness values. Thus, any volume calculations made from PIPS2.0 will similarly be biased high.
What will be interesting to observe this summer is what will happen to the old ice that was transported into the Beaufort and Chukchi Seas over the winter. If that ice doesn’t survive the summer melt, it will further deplete the Arctic’s store of old, thick ice. A lot of that ice is currently in more southerly locations than it has been in the past several years, which means it is in a warmer location.
Looking at all of the evidence given here, pro and con, I am convinced beyond reasonable doubt that the ice build-up in the Arctic is evincing the beginning of a new ice age. The world is completely unprepared for this eventuality. They are reducing and prohibiting our oil and gas reserves, converting food to booze, and having most people, like the Arctic sunbathers in the picture, preparing for a cozy beach day.
And who are they? Easy. FAGTs (Feeders At Government Troughs): power hungry govt. bureaucrats, anti free-traders, ivory tower climate “scientist” grantees, windmill makers from La Mancha, and carbon swindlers. Every single one of these are “they”, along with their paid stooges and the under-educated dupes.
Julienne
If the PIPS data is consistently biased high as you suggest, that shouldn’t make much difference to my relative volume calculations. The volume numbers I am presenting are in units pixel-metres, and as long as the bias is consistent from year to year – the relative position along the Y-Axis should be correct.
Phil
I am not doing anything to the PIPS data. I am using it as is. How in your mind does that constitute “corrupting” it?
Again –
stevengoddard says:
June 10, 2010 at 10:23 am
The Naval Research Station was the first to utilize several of their Cray computers to analyze weather patterns and ocean flows, so Phil does not know what he is talking about. Don’t the oceans cover a little bit of the earth’s surface?
Tim Clark says:
June 10, 2010 at 9:17 am
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
Alarmist ? Do I sound “alarmed” to you ?
I notice that IARC-JAXA and NSIDC were acceptable sources of Arctic sea ice extent data when that extent was approaching a long term average:
Gee, I wonder how that turned out ?
http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/daily_images/N_stddev_timeseries.png
Oh yeah, just missed the average, then fell through the floor.
Perhaps you should contact the owner of WUWT and ask him to remove the prominent IARC-JAXA “Sea Ice” link from the Homepage Live Weather Roll and replace it with a link to the more “skeptical” University of Bergen, Norway site.
Oh wait, Al Gore’s already worked his mojo on this University:
http://www.uib.no/rg/EECRG/research/climate-related-research/4-c-and-beyond
Julienne says:
June 10, 2010 at 10:25 am
What will be interesting to observe this summer is what will happen to the old ice that was transported into the Beaufort and Chukchi Seas over the winter. If that ice doesn’t survive the summer melt, it will further deplete the Arctic’s store of old, thick ice. A lot of that ice is currently in more southerly locations than it has been in the past several years, which means it is in a warmer location.
Also of interest is the Nares strait being open this year and the flow of some of the oldest ice through it. The same happened in 2007 but not as early as this year.
July 2007
http://www.ec.gc.ca/glaces-ice/default.asp?lang=En&n=D32C361E-1&wsdoc=C06B577B-1BC0-4C77-8F5D-5CAD406EEBB2
May 2010
http://rapidfire.sci.gsfc.nasa.gov/realtime/single.php?2010135/crefl1_143.A2010135195500-2010135200000.500m.jpg
Julienne
I find your comments about thick ice in southerly locations interesting. The concern has been that the location of the thick ice retreated to the north in recent years. Now you are expressing concern that it has expanded back to the south. That seems a little inconsistent to me.
I do not remember anything insulting in my post, especially when compared to what has been written here in the past two days, by other posters, about me, and particularly since what I was doing was replying to an attack on me and my character. You didn’t snip that attack, but you snipped my response.
Please e-mail the original, snipped post to me so I can figure out which part of it I could/should edit and resubmit.
Also please, please apply your rules across the board, not just to those that disagree with your own position.
Reply: It is deleted, there’s no recovery. With all this griping back and forth you could have made three new comments by now. – mod
Tim Clark says:June 10, 2010 at 9:17 am
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
Anu says:
June 10, 2010 at 10:34 am
Alarmist ? Do I sound “alarmed” to you ?
I notice that IARC-JAXA and NSIDC were acceptable sources of Arctic sea ice extent data when that extent was approaching a long term average:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/04/02/artic-sea-ice-extent-update-still-growing/
Arctic Sea Ice Extent Update: still growing
The April 1st National Snow and Ice Data Center Arctic Sea Ice Extent plot continues its unusual upwards trend and is almost intersecting the “normal” line. Given the slope of the current trend it seems highly likely it will intersect the normal line with the April 2nd plot.
Gee, I wonder how that turned out ?
http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/daily_images/N_stddev_timeseries.png
Oh yeah, just missed the average, then fell through the floor.
Ahh, I sure notice the old bait and switch. First you use this site to debate;
http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/seaice/extent/plot.csv
Then switch to this site to make an unrelated point;
http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/daily_images/N_stddev_timeseries.png
without commenting on the data provided.
Hmmm, is that cherry picking?
For the record, I stick to the same site. I don’t care what site WUWT picks, and Anthony wouldn’t listen anyway, nor would I expect him to. He’s probably trying to accomodate propagandists.
To refute your second point, the data from this site illustrates that 2009 was above the “average” extent and area for a period, then “fell through the floor” to ~1 mil. sq km above 2007’s minimum. Not an insignificant recovery.
http://arctic-roos.org/observations/satellite-data/sea-ice/ice-area-and-extent-in-arctic
Tim Clark says:
June 10, 2010 at 8:53 am
Do you believe a model or actual observations.
How did Steve Goddard arrive to his conclusions? By estimating ice volume from the observations. What does the PIOMASS model do? It estimates ice volume from the observations.
Now, since both are essentially doing the same thing, explain to me why Steven Goddard’s work is better than that of the Polar Science Center.
stevengoddard says:
June 10, 2010 at 10:53 am
Julienne
I find your comments about thick ice in southerly locations interesting. The concern has been that the location of the thick ice retreated to the north in recent years. Now you are expressing concern that it has expanded back to the south. That seems a little inconsistent to me.
_____________
I don’t see an inconsistency here at all. The point is that older (and hence potentially thicker) ice in more southerly locations would subject it to more overall exposure to warmth and the potential for melting. If you watch the PIOMAS future projections:
http://psc.apl.washington.edu/zhang/IDAO/seasonal_outlook.html
for this summer, you do see that the summer melt doesn’t quite (but almost does) get rid of all that older ice that has been moved to the more southerly areas. The central part of the Arctic basin has been almost completely cleared of older ice by the September low…and this would not have been the case 5 years ago.
It will be most interesting to see how PIOMAS performs this summer.
Anne van der Bom refers to an up-to-date chart of sea ice volume anomaly. However:
(1) that graph doesn’t show what happened *before* 1980. What was the sea ice volume during the MWP ?
(2) There is no proof that the decrease of polar sea ice is due to the increase of CO2 in the atmosphere.
(3) And, anyway, what is the inconvenient of less polar ice? of ice-free Arctic?
*******
sphaerica says:
June 10, 2010 at 6:26 am
* An ice free pole could not occur without dramatic summer warming.
“Arctic Ice isn’t and won’t melt” kick) — and we live to see an event which hasn’t happened in 700,000 years.
*******
Your 700,000 yrs is about 2 orders of magnitude too long since the last event.