Scan of Arctic ice dispels melting gloom: Researcher

From The Vancouver Sun

Geophysicist Christian Haas, of the University of Alberta, and a colleague pose with the "bird" they towed along on a cable below the plane which flew 100 metres above the ice. Photograph by: Christian Haas/University of Alberta, Photo Handout Read more: http://www.vancouversun.com/Scan+Arctic+dispels+melting+gloom+Researcher/3158192/story.html#ixzz0r0Q7Sfd9

An electromagnetic “bird” dispatched to the Arctic for the most detailed look yet at the thickness of the ice has turned up a reassuring picture.

The meltdown has not been as dire as some would suggest, said geophysicist Christian Haas of the University of Alberta. His international team flew across the top of the planet last year for the 2,412-kilometre survey.

They found large expanses of ice four to five metres thick, despite the record retreat in 2007.

“This is a nice demonstration that there is still hope for the ice,” said Haas.

The survey, which demonstrated that the “bird” probe tethered to a plane can measure ice thickness over large areas, uncovered plenty of resilient “old” ice from Norway to the North Pole to Alaska in April 2009.

There is already speculation about how the ice will fare this summer, with some scientists predicting a record melt. Haas said he doesn’t buy it.

He said the ice is in some ways in better shape going into the melt season than it has been for a couple of years. “We have more thick ice going into the summer than we did in 2009 and 2008,” he said.

Much will depend on the intensity of the winds, and how the ice fractures and is blown around, he said. “But any talk about tipping points, a sudden drop and no recovery . . . I don’t think it is going to happen.”

The more likely scenario is that the ice will continue a decline that has been underway for at least 30 years, he said. There is likely to be plenty of variability in that decline, he added, with “extreme” melts in some years, followed by “significant recoveries like we saw last year.”

Part of the problem with ice forecasting is that it based largely on data from satellites. They are good at measuring how large an area is covered by ice, but tell little about its thickness — which can measure in mere centimetres in the case of new ice, or metres in the case of ice several years old.

The thickness had “changed little since 2007, and remained within the expected range of natural variability,” the team reports in the Geophysical Research Letters.

Read the rest here

Advertisements

123 thoughts on “Scan of Arctic ice dispels melting gloom: Researcher

  1. “The meltdown has not been as dire as some would suggest, said geophysicist Christian Haas of the University of Alberta.”

    As a graduate of this fine institution back a few decades, I know that the U of A receives considerable funding from the Provincial Government, which in turn receives considerable revenue streams from royalties on oil/gas sales and leasing of Crown land to tar sands and gas projects. Big Oil also directly funds the University with ‘dirty’ industry money.

    Logically, it is clear that these researchers must be partially funded by ‘big tar sands’ and ‘big gas’, and therefore cannot be trusted. :-)

    Go Bears!

  2. Now that would be cool, flying in a DC-3 over the artic at 60 meters, where can I buy a ride! The procedure seems simple and robust, the maps would be fun to see and the contorsions to discredit the data equally entertaining. Climate gate and the daily “studies” have been a huge eye opener for this lay person. I put very little stock in any of these studies touted in the media. I have become a full blown skeptic. I think these days you are a fool if you are not.

  3. That has been my guess all along.

    My forecast for the next couple days is a lot of ice movement (the vortex winds are wicked strong at low and high levels right now) with some movement of ice out of Fram Strait at higher speeds than we have seen in the past. However, there will also be some centralized ice compaction that can slow melt down later. By the end of this week, the winds will have died down again and we will be back to watching grass grow. The melting along the edges up through Kara Sea is simply a confluence of solar and warm Atlantic current action.

    It is also likely that cloud cover and lack of cloud cover has added or diminished that confluence. Depending on the cloud type, you can get blocked shortwave and no retention of longwave (ice doesn’t melt much), you can get strong shortwave and no retention of longwave (ice melts a little more), or you can get some blocked shortwave and retention of longwave (ice melts a little more). Cloud conditions over ice and snow is damned hard to determine up there because unlike others, I can’t see Russia from my house.

  4. This survey was reported last year in WUWT, IIRC. Since I also have an interest in aviation, this story also led to a description of the many changes made to a venerable DC-3 to update it.

    IanM

  5. Nice rig. Do they only do a single pass or are they constantly doing spot checks on ice thickness?

    There was a discussion on a thread yesterday about how PIOMASS thickness algorithm is susceptible to “soot” contamination of ice. Does the bird probe they use have the same vulnerability?

  6. At 53°30′ N, the University of Alberta is in the most northerly major city in North America (Edmonton). They know snow. Without a local ocean moderating temperatures like European cities have, Edmonton is cold, even setting an extreme cold record last December of -46.1C
    http://www.edmontonjournal.com/technology/Edmonton+coldest+place+North+America/2336460/story.html

    Just pointing that out… and I’ll certainly give more credence to an Arctic researcher who actually goes to the Arctic and does an ice survey than a computer modeler sitting in an air conditioned office somewhere.

    If geophysicist Christian Haas of the University of Alberta says no tipping point is likely, you should pay attention.

  7. “The more likely scenario is that the ice will continue a decline that has been underway for at least 30 years, he said. There is likely to be plenty of variability in that decline, he added, with “extreme” melts in some years, followed by “significant recoveries like we saw last year.””
    So, the “death spiral” is still there, it’s just that it may take a while longer. Their belief in the GCMs remains steadfast. And yet, “there is still hope for the ice,” said Haas. How can this be? Could the GCMs maybe, possibly be wrong? Doubt seems to be creeping in little by little.

  8. What – you mean they FLY a plane across swathes of the Arctic towing a device which can work out the thickness …. by sending and receiving EM waves ???

    But that can’t be as efficient (or as much fun) as trying to walk to the north pole drilling holes every km. ?????? Bring back the Caitlin survey !

  9. Wait. Just yesterday you posted that Arctic Ocean ice is retreating at 30-year record pace! I’m so confused. How can this be?

    Dan Ariely may have some insight. In his book, Predictably Irrational, in the chapter on the effect of expectations and elsewhere int he book, he touches on how people can be irrational in the face of good evidence.

  10. Geophysicist != Climate Scientologist

    Actual measurements conflict with the models?
    Actual measurements do not support the forecasts?
    How can this be?

    I expect that the plane, the gas, the time, the ‘bird’ and data recorder cost significantly less than a Climate SuperConfuser running an interpretation model.

    Actully measuring something, what a novel idea!

    “If I asked this House how long this cummerbund is, you might telephone around all the manufacturers and ask them how many cummerbunds they made, and how long each type of cummerbund was, and put the data into a computer model run by a zitty teenager eating too many doughnuts, and the computer would make an expensive guess. Or you could take a tape-measure and” – glaring at the opposition across the despatch-box – “measure it!”: Lord Monkton

  11. A little or a lot of ice, the fact is THEY have already decided it: You´ll pay for your carbon sins.
    Need to begin practicing how to kneel down before the holy chosen ones, who so wisely observed that the world was warming up due to your sinful exhalations of CO2 gas.

  12. Ah, but the data has not been adjusted yet. I’m sure that once the Team gets ahold of it they will robustly homogenized it to remove data that is ‘obviously wrong’ and show that, in fact, the ice volume is now at its lowest level in 1000 years.

  13. chris y says: “…the U of A receives considerable funding from the Provincial Government, which in turn receives considerable revenue streams from royalties on oil/gas sales and leasing of Crown land to tar sands and gas projects. Big Oil also directly funds the University with ‘dirty’ industry money….”

    Argument ad hominem, the Warmist’s phony logic of choice, the very best they can do. Ho, hum. Get a life.

  14. Grant Hillemeyer says: “…I have become a full blown skeptic. I think these days you are a fool if you are not.”

    Well, maybe not a fool, but certainly foolish or easily fooled.

  15. So. here we are. Another set of people who, ” measured stuff”, finding it is, ” as you were”, mataku!.

    Q: Will they ever run out of BS artists telling lies?

  16. The authors of the study are well-respected scientists in their field, regardless of who funds their research.
    Note that in the abstract, the survey took place in April 2009 over the key regions of old ice in the Arctic Ocean between Svalbard and Alaska. Previous work by Haas showed that the thickness of old ice at the North Pole decreased by 0.9m between 1991 and 2007, and that the modal thickness at the North Pole declined from 2.2m in 2004 to 0.9m in summer of 2007 as first-year ice replaced multiyear ice.
    This recent study focused on the multiyear ice. Figure 1 of their paper nicely shows the regions surveyed. Their main conclusions are that the old ice surveyed in April 2009 was slightly thicker than in 2007, but within the expected range of natural variability. They also caution that they focused on one small area in the Arctic so that their analysis may not be valid to “arctic-wide” conclusions.
    It’s always a good idea to actually read the study rather than just the press release.

  17. stevengoddard says:
    June 16, 2010 at 8:06 am
    I’m guessing that the author meant to write that the survey took place in April, 2010 rather than April, 2009.

    No, the paper linked says April, 2009. Publishing results from April 2010 in May 2010 would be record-breaking speed for a scientific journal.

    Let’s hope they continue to run their survey every year at the same time in order to get a consistent time series of outcomes. I’m not convinced an iceless Arctic would be a disaster for any but the Clauses, but it would be good to know if it does change suddenly.

  18. The survey was taken in April, 2009.

    Then they say “We have more thick ice going into the summer than we did in 2009 and 2008,”

    Doesn’t make any sense.

  19. Chris Y
    You are SO off-base. Calling names (it’s big oil…”) is immature, naive, uninformed, and reflects absolutely NO research on your own of facts. Without carbon, there is no life. Without Co2 there would be nothing green. Without green stuff, there would be no OIL. And I’m guessing that you, like all Canucks, rely on the carbon fuels to keep warm, drive your likely big truck, to say nothing of have access to all the entertaining music, gagets, entertainment…and FOOD…that finds it’s way to Calgary. CO2 is NOT causative of “climate change”. Wrong premise = wrong conclusion. How about taking a look at historical geology? You just might find that at one time huge mammals lived in Northern Alberta, among tropics-like forests. Hence, OIL. Perhaps you, like many, do not think of mankind as “natural” on this earth. We’re on an awe-inspiring planet which finds a wonderful, beautiful, habitat for all life forms, and which, in spite of Frank slides, Mt. St. Helens and other more earth-shattering eruptions, nuclear-like hits of space objects in Eastern Canada, stuff grows back and our beautiful home heals and continues to sustain life.

    It’s going to get COLD, buddy, and while I’m too old to experience the de-bunking of your mentality, you apparently will one day know the bitter truth if we continue the nonsense of taxing the very driver of life. By the way, I live in BC, and I drive to near-by Alberta to buy my carbon tax free gas!

  20. chris y says:
    June 16, 2010 at 7:31 am
    (…)
    Logically, it is clear that these researchers must be partially funded by ‘big tar sands’ and ‘big gas’, and therefore cannot be trusted. :-)
    —————Reply:
    I suggest that if you’re going to call somebody a liar that you have evidence to back up your claim. Otherwise you are simply wallowing in misapproprianism (a word with no definition, by the way). Now I’m not saying you’re right or you’re wrong–you’re just setting yourself up for ridicule.

  21. Some journalism, presenting a year old survey as describing current ice conditions, things are getting desperate.

  22. If the more extreme ends of the pro-AGW element weren’t so hopelessly dedicated to their “it’s worse than we thought it was!” meme, they would understand that is a popular loser for them as it puts them in a much more difficult proof position that is much easier for the skeptics to poke gaping holes in.

    They should be arguing it is “as bad as we thought it was, and that’s plenty bad enough”, and showing that even a bit of recovery in 2010 from 2009 would merely put the longer term ice loss roughly back on a pre-2007 trend line.

    That ought to be their bench mark for whether there has been any improvement, not crazy “ice free arctic” claims, nor solipsistic logic that until arctic recovery hits 1980 levels that it is inappropriate to talk about “recovery” at all.

    Has the long-term trend line 1980-2006 been regained or exceeded on the upside by anything that happened in 2008-2010? That’s the first milestone, and it is in fact a reasonably important one.

  23. These guys likely have a small data set they are working with, though, so I don’t put a whole lot of stock in this one way or the other.

  24. Well, there goes their funding. Or, the next “study” will say it is worse than we thought. It was nice to have an unbiased study like this. Too bad the priests hate objective studies.

  25. chris y

    If you’re going to use sarcasm here in the future, make it clear by using /sarc or some other more explicit notice. Many of the responders here fail to recognize it.

  26. jakers says:
    June 16, 2010 at 8:41 am

    Map of the “soundings” they took.

    hence, a realization of the cost of av-gas, sheer boredom of hours over ice, and the grandeur of the volume of area.

  27. Seriously, you guys need to read chris y’s post again and recognize it for the sarcasm it is! Heck, there’s even a smiley emoticon after “cannot be trusted”!!!!

  28. Has it been peer review by the Show Business Canadian Professor (and known Prophet Al’s bedwetter colleague) David Susuki?

  29. Hey there RockyRoad, EH, jorgekafkazar- I guess sarcasm doesn’t transfer well. It seems you missed the smiley face at the end. Maybe I should have added something about asbestos face cream…Oh well.

    CodeTech- I grew up in Edmonton. As a kid I froze toes playing outdoor hockey, when games were called only if it dropped below -25C. Family still living there said last winter was cold, and that’s saying something coming from lifelong Edmontonians.

  30. “We have more thick ice going into the summer than we did in 2009 and 2008”

    I arrived at the same conclusion several months ago albeit without any empirical measurement data. In fact, I will be willing to go out on a limb and say that barring a repeat of the 2007 wind anomaly, the amount of “old” thick ice should increase next year as well. This is based not on any fancy theory but on simple arithmetic.

    In 2007 there was a great loss of “old” ( >= 5 year-old) ice. In 2008 we would have seen any remaining 4yo ice become 5yo. Only in 2011 would we see new ice that formed in the 2007-2008 season become 5yo. So actual full recovery from 2007 in the context of ice 5yo or greater doesn’t even really START until 2011 (assuming a larger than normal “loss” of ice < 5yo in 2007 along with old ice) and would likely not reach the normal ratio until 2016 or so ( 5 years of new 5yo ice coming into the mix).

    So the data from the study are consistent with what I would expect to see using simple arithmetic barring a repeat of the 2007 wind pattern.

  31. chris y says: (…) “Go bears!”
    Would you kindly explain to us what that’s supposed to mean?!!

  32. Tom_R says:

    “If you’re going to use sarcasm here in the future, make it clear by using /sarc or some other more explicit notice. Many of the responders here fail to recognize it.”

    Will do.

  33. This is OT but I am increasingly annoyed at the sloppy use of the English language by respondents. It seems no-0ne can distinguish between hypothesis and theory.
    A theory is an explanation of natural phenomenen which can be tested. A good example is Einstein’s theory of general relativty. Einstein proposed two tests to show his theory was correct. Both tests were used and his theory was accepted.
    Here, we must add a cautionary note. That a theory can make predictions successfully does not mean it is valid. There is always a better theory waiting in the wings. So a theory might be described as an explanation that has been tested and appears to work until we get more information.
    A hypothesis is a different animal. It is an explanation which by its very nature cannot be tested. This may be because of the nature of the explanation or because of our practical limits in testing. The classic case is Avagdro’s hypothesis which deternines the number of molecules of a gas in a given space at a given temperature and pressure. This formula does appear to work and has never been shown to be wrong but we can’t test it because it is beyond our physical limits to actually count the molecules.
    So cheer up you creationists. Darwins ‘theory’ of evolution is not a theory at all. It is a hypothesis. Survival of the fittest is a self-fulling rule. It’s like saying that the fastest will win the race. It has no predictive quality and as such is not a theory.
    We now get down to the hoary old question of models (computer or otherwise). A model is a simulation of natural phenomenom. Keep in mind the word ‘simulation’.
    It is quite acceptable to use models to look at how natural phenomenom might change. They are widely used. The only question you put against a model is ‘how accurate is it’.
    The more accurate, the more useful. Climate models appear to be woefully inaccurate since they cannot deal with past climate changes. This would suggest that their predictions are also inaccurate. Clearly, in the models, some vital factors are being ignored, eg the variability of the Sun.
    From the many articles and responses that I have seen on this website (which I believe is a first class place to read the truth) I fear that there is no real distinction between theory, hypothesis, and model. If you’re out there Anthony, I hope you read this and might educate our respondents a little more and even some politicians.
    Yours in despair.

  34. It’s a good thing that a western Canadian news paper ran the story first. If the Montreal Gazette had gotten it, the headline would have been some far more akin to the line adorning the sea level rise story which detailed a whopping 40 micron rise per annum. Great work U of A! You’ve made us Albertans proud again.

  35. Wonderful aircraft, those Gooney Birds still are. Last one off the production line was in 1946, the year of my 10th birthday. An aircraft at least 64 years old, and still a most dependable workhorse.

  36. #
    #
    bruce says:
    June 16, 2010 at 9:47 am

    jakers says:
    June 16, 2010 at 8:41 am

    Map of the “soundings” they took.

    hence, a realization of the cost of av-gas, sheer boredom of hours over ice, and the grandeur of the volume of area.

    True, true.
    However, pondering it I would say that the small tracklines they made in 2009 only have a little relevant data for 2010. Off the North Slope of AK and off Banks Island, that melted last year, and already this year too. The ice north of Greenland/Nares Strait is pretty broken up this year, a lot different from last.

  37. As always doom & gloom guesstimation garners media fireworks and headlines while actual measurements snag a footnote on page 100 opposite that coupon for GE fluorescent bulbs on page 99. This wasn’t on any Canadian news that I’m aware of. David Suzuki buying new hemp socks is more likely to end up on the CBC News with an in depth follow-up by CTV.

  38. I know Christian Haas from my time at the University of Alberta. He is very level-headed in regards to climate matters and uses sound scientific arguments.
    As Alan Clark says, it is a good thing the Vancouver Sun got this story out before an eastern Canadian news outlet.

  39. The DC-3 is a tremendous aircraft. Was a backender for 183 missions in Vietnam – never spilled a beer once. That bird flew through 14K ft monsoon thunderheads when needed and said “bring it on, b*&^%h”.

    Flew forever on one engine several times.

    I’m buyin’ the data just for old times sake.

  40. What no R.Gates? I miss the arm waving, ignore facts, PIOMASS Model is Awesome, and the “I said so” justifications :-(

  41. john wright says:- “chris y says: (…) “Go bears!”
    Would you kindly explain to us what that’s supposed to mean?!!”

    The University of Alberta Golden Bears sports teams, of course.

  42. Confusing as it implies the survey was last year yet it also implies that they already knew 2009’s result????

    Still reckons that the ice in in a death spiral, just a long one.

  43. They actually flew over the ice to really observe the ice and take take measurements IRL?!? Isn’t that like cheating? o_O

  44. P.F. says:
    June 16, 2010 at 8:28 am (Edit)
    Wait. Just yesterday you posted that Arctic Ocean ice is retreating at 30-year record pace! I’m so confused. How can this be?

    The science is settled. didn’t you get the memo

  45. Dave F says:
    June 16, 2010 at 9:25 am

    These guys likely have a small data set they are working with, though, so I don’t put a whole lot of stock in this one way or the other.

    You mean a bit like the insurance company funded Catlin Survey who tried it out by hand because they said their radar ‘broke down’. They managed to drill a superhuman number of holes per day according to critics on WUWT by the way. ;o(

  46. The entire problem with ice forecasting is that Nature doesn’t follow forecasts. Oh, that goes for climate soothsaying too, Nature doesn’t follow climate models.

  47. Tom_R says:
    June 16, 2010 at 9:46 am
    chris y

    “If you’re going to use sarcasm here in the future, make it clear by using /sarc or some other more explicit notice. Many of the responders here fail to recognize it.”

    The whole point with sarcasm is that if you have to signpost it “hey, this is sarcasm,” then it ceases to have any impact. Let the interpretation be in the mind of the reader, to make of it what he or she will.

  48. Grumpy Old Man says:
    June 16, 2010 at 10:27 am
    Is it that a theory, an hypothesis or just a model? ☺

  49. It’s far more exaggerated and imaginary than once thought.
    Hypoclimatria – Fear of the climate.
    Don’t crawl under a rock.

  50. The differentiation between a theory and a hypothesis given above is not what I learned as a science undergraduate. Then, a hypothesis was an as yet unproven explanation for a series of related facts. Based on the hypothesis (explanation) one could design additional experiments and predict the results. If the hypothesis was correct, the additional experiments would have the predicted results. If the experiments did not have the predicted results, then a new or modified explanation was in order, and so were new experiments. A hypothesis that was capable of explaining the wide variety of facts that might come up and a wide variety of results from different experiments would eventually be elevated to the level of a theory. A theory still allows for tweaking of the explanation if facts and experimental results are outside the expected results, but the bar is set a little higher.

  51. CodeTech says:
    June 16, 2010 at 8:12 am

    At 53°30′ N, the University of Alberta is in the most northerly major city in North America (Edmonton).

    Fairbanks? Anchorage?

    RockyRoad says:
    June 16, 2010 at 9:23 am

    chris y says:
    June 16, 2010 at 7:31 am
    (…)
    Logically, it is clear that these researchers must be partially funded by ‘big tar sands’ and ‘big gas’, and therefore cannot be trusted. :-)

    —————Reply:
    I suggest that if you’re going to call somebody a liar that you have evidence to back up your claim.

    You missed his smilie. He was being facetious.

  52. Christian Haas of the University of Alberta.”

    As a graduate of this fine institution back a few decades, I know that the U of A receives considerable funding from the Provincial Government, which in turn receives considerable revenue streams from royalties on oil/gas sales and leasing of Crown land to tar sands and gas projects. Big Oil also directly funds the University with ‘dirty’ industry money.

    Logically, it is clear that these researchers must be partially funded by ‘big tar sands’ and ‘big gas’, and therefore cannot be trusted. :-)
    ______________________________________________________________
    Chris, your premise is that those connected with “big oil” and “Big gas” are not to be trusted. That is very smart.

    As a Canadian you therefore must know of “big oil” Maurice Strong, father of the UN First Earth Summit, where he brought up “Global Warming” and Chairman of Kyoto.

    Worse Strong was a senior advisor to the World Bank. So by your logic you should not trust Maurice Strong, Father of the global Warming and the Environmental movement.

    Lest you think oil companies are fighting Cap and Trade, there is this from an eye witness journalist:

    “On that day, August 4, 1997, then-CEO [of BP], (then-Sir) John Browne, joined by Ken Lay, met in the Oval with President Clinton and Vice President Gore.

    Their mission that day? As revealed in the August 1, 1997 Lay briefing memo whiih I was later provided — having left a brief dance with Enron after raising questions about this very issue — it was to demand that the White House ignore unanimous Senate instruction pursuant to Art. II, Sec. 2 of the Constitution (”advice”, of “advice and consent” fame), and to go to Kyoto and agree to the “global warming” treaty.

    Oh, and to enact a cap-and-trade scheme….” http://biggovernment.com/chorner/2010/06/15/bps-excellent-oval-office-adventure/#more-132782

    SO please look at the global warming camp for the backing of the oil companies, you will find it in spades.

  53. Roger Knights says:
    June 16, 2010 at 2:34 pm
    CodeTech says:
    June 16, 2010 at 8:12 am

    At 53°30′ N, the University of Alberta is in the most northerly major city in North America (Edmonton).

    Fairbanks? Anchorage?

    Fairbanks: 35,000 – metro area 97,000 (2008 census)
    Anchorage: 279,000 (2008 census)

    Edmonton: 782,439 – Metro area: 1,034,945 (2009 census)
    Quote from wiki: “making it the northernmost North American city with a metropolitan population over one million”.

    Not a big deal to me, really, and it might even be pedantic for me to point it out… but I’m not sure I personally consider 300,000-ish to be a major city. YMMV.

  54. chris y – I got your little joke, very amusing too. Most Americans don’t do the irony/sarc thing too well though. Must be something (rotten ice?) in the water up there ;-)

  55. “Big Oil also directly funds the University with ‘dirty’ industry money.”

    The CRU was founded with funding from British Petroleum and Dutch Shell – not to mention Nuclear Power interests – in the 1970’s when they thought we headed into another ice age.

    Since then they’ve re-calibrated their message and are currently funding the AGW grant machine.

    http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/about/history/

  56. the most detailed look yet at the thickness of the ice has turned up a reassuring picture.

    But the PIOMAS graph doesn’t. So they are wrong.

    ;-)

  57. The meltdown has not been as dire as some would suggest,

    He doesn’t agree with what the PIOMAS graph shows. So he is wrong.

    ;-)

  58. Alan F wrote (June 16, 2010 at 11:21 am ):
    As always doom & gloom guesstimation garners media fireworks and headlines while actual measurements snag a footnote on page 100 opposite that coupon for GE fluorescent bulbs on page 99. This wasn’t on any Canadian news that I’m aware of. David Suzuki buying new hemp socks is more likely to end up on the CBC News with an in depth follow-up by CTV.

    I read the story this morning in the Telegraph-Journal (New Brunswick), a paper not generally given to anything but the AGW version. For the story, see: http://telegraphjournal.canadaeast.com/rss/article/1096396
    It’s the same story as in the Vancouver Sun, I am sure.

    IanM

  59. They found large expanses of ice four to five metres thick, despite the record retreat in 2007.

    The PIOMAS graph shows things are worse that 2007. So they are wrong.

  60. “This is a nice demonstration that there is still hope for the ice,”

    Nope. The PIOMAS graph shows the ‘death spiral’.

  61. The survey, which demonstrated that the “bird” probe tethered to a plane can measure ice thickness over large areas,

    But is is wrong since it didn’t show the same thing the PIOMAS graph shows.

  62. uncovered plenty of resilient “old” ice from Norway to the North Pole to Alaska

    That is impossible. The PIOMAS graph doesn’t show that.

  63. There is already speculation about how the ice will fare this summer, with some scientists predicting a record melt. Haas said he doesn’t buy it.</i.

    Hey, I'd like to be optimistic and agree. But the PIOMAS graph just wont let me.

  64. He said the ice is in some ways in better shape going into the melt season than it has been for a couple of years.

    Man, where’s his head at? Hasn’t he seen the PIOMAS graph?

  65. “We have more thick ice going into the summer than we did in 2009 and 2008,” he said.

    OMG, he is so misdirected. If I could just show him the PIOMAS he would get his bearings back. He doesn’t know how lost he is!

  66. “But any talk about tipping points, a sudden drop and no recovery . . . I don’t think it is going to happen.”

    He’s says he’s thinking? If he would know the details of the PIOMAS graph then, and only then, is any real thinking begun. The tipping point is past. The death spiral is inevitable. Resistance is futile. He must be assimilated into the PIOMAS Borg.

  67. The more likely scenario is that the ice will continue a decline that has been underway for at least 30 years, he said

    Whew! Maybe there’s hope for him. PIOMAS can still reach him!

    Reply: Ok, that’s enough. ~ ctm

  68. Part of the problem with ice forecasting is that it based largely on data from satellites. They are good at measuring how large an area is covered by ice, but tell little about its thickness

    We know, we know. We’ve heard about the shortcomings of modelling. But now we have PIOMAS. It is highly sophisticated. It accounts for any, and actually almost all, human shortcomings that usually are attributable to modelling. It’s made by some good global warming scientists. Don’t worry, the ‘death spiral’ is a sure thing.

  69. The thickness had “changed little since 2007, and remained within the expected range of natural variability,”

    Why is this man believing real world data?

  70. “””Grumpy Old Man says:
    June 16, 2010 at 10:27 am
    … It seems no-0ne can distinguish between hypothesis and theory…”””

    Best I’ve read, you have a way with words!

  71. Another Non Sequiteur.

    What we are discussing is the EL Nino of 1.8, a larger version of 2007’s 1.1.
    AS THEY SAY: 2009 had ice like 2007 … which is where I get my Equation:

    6000km3 (Icesat 2007) – 4000 km3 (2007’s Loss) x 1.8/1.1 = -545 = WE ALL DIE
    This is no joke.
    My principle contention is that EL NINO activity results in big Ice melts as it both warms & promotes Winds pushing Ice out of the Basin.

    This source NOT ONLY BACKS MY START FIGURE – – but has the same Idea, ie, they say one can EXPECT a big Ice Loss with WINDS.

    They were contrasting their results to the CO2-Makes-Warming crowd which wants a CONTINUOUSLY DECLINING ICE.

    There is a Long-term trend since 1977, but then, there is a pattern of 30-years UP, 30 years DOWN called the Pacific Oscillation that happens to say the same thing.
    >> Thus the dispute: Both Man & Natural-Warmers PREDICTED a 1977-2007 decline in Ice.
    But I am only concerned with the Sudden Jumps in the record: More Ice for Sulfur (Volcanos) & La Ninas, Less for El Ninos. Plus the 2007 El Nino started with less ice than any ever had before, putting it into a FEEDBACK loop, where OPEN WATER created a dark area for SUN to be absorbed, heating the Ocean & melting Nearby Ice away FROM UNDERNEATH.

    However there is one further thing 2007 did: it had LOW CLOUDINESS.
    With Luck, the “Arctic Albedo” post is right in forecasting more clouds than norm in future (note the chart shows we had far LESS this June – – until 2 days ago)
    Unfortunately, Steve (rightly) says:

    The real key to Arctic albedo, and melt – is clouds. Can climate models effectively forecast cloudiness? Short answer – no.

    Which as I have repeatedly said, is one of the two 50-50 chances that give my prediction of 25% chance of 99% of Americans dieing.

    I will be very happy not to die but do not want to trust a Forecast whose author says he really doesn’t know.

    I suggest:
    >> Fly planes in the Arctic to make Contrails
    >>Heighten Smokestacks & increase output at Norilsk = Sulfur
    >> Pump sulfur & sea water up high
    >> Turn off all Sulfur scrubbers in June, July, & August
    >> Stop the increase in Diesel Soot from the Evil “Cap & Trade”, which has been denounced by all 3 of the top 3 Environmental Scientists on the AGW side (Lovelock, Hansen, Crutzen), & christened “Evil Black Carbon”, by EPA Careerists.

    I REALLY do not want to play Russian Roulette with 2 Billion Kids’ lives.

    Sorry so brief but gotta run & congratulate Steve on finding a Cloud site on his Albedo post.

  72. Enneagram says 8:41

    Right on. They have decided for the US taxpayers to pay and at the moment they have the votes-so we will pay.

  73. Gail Combs June 16, 2010 at 2:38 pm :

    Chris, your premise is that those connected with “big oil” and “Big gas” are not to be trusted. That is very …

    How about missing a smiley emoticom? Smart … silly … red-faced (when racing in on one of their favorite hobby horses in too quickly?)

    In case you missed it above:

    Chris y finishes with:

    … ‘big tar sands’ and ‘big gas’, and therefore cannot be trusted. :-)

    :-))

  74. I just think it cool that they dragged out an old buckets and bolts DC-3, pulled a fish finder behind it, and are now using that data to check to see how accurate the satellites are. LOL

    “The team is planning more surveys for 2011 and 2012 as part of a program to check observations made with Europe’s new “CyrosSat” satellite, launched this spring to study the world’s ice.

  75. why are people haveing a go at Chris Y? Cann you not see a ‘smiley face’ that denotes sarcasm (in this case):

    Logically, it is clear that these researchers must be partially funded by ‘big tar sands’ and ‘big gas’, and therefore cannot be trusted. :-)

    Go Bears!

    Please be a bit more careful reading the message before attaching the messenger.

  76. Reply: Ok, that’s enough. ~ ctm

    You’re right. Looking at it now it is a little overboard.

  77. I was taught the same as starzmom. Even a hypothesis has to be testable as to results vs predictions. The so-called AGW “theory” is in reality no more than speculation.

    I also get most tired when “scientists” use the term “proof” regarding theory. Theories cannot be proved, but can, if a valid theory, be falsifiable. At best, even with the most rigorous testing, we can only hope that we are getting closer to “truth”.

  78. Amino Acids in Meteorites says:
    June 16, 2010 at 7:03 pm

    You need to relax, enjoy ‘In Search of The Coming Ice Age’ with your host, Leanord Nimoy.

  79. Amino Acids in Meteorites says:
    June 16, 2010 at 4:14 pm
    They found large expanses of ice four to five metres thick, despite the record retreat in 2007.

    Uh, yeah, that’s what they said. In April. Of 2009. In a limited area (saw a link somewhere above for that…)

  80. P.F. says:
    June 16, 2010 at 8:28 am

    Wait. Just yesterday you posted that Arctic Ocean ice is retreating at 30-year record pace! I’m so confused. How can this be?

    Retreat isn’t really the correct idea. That would make you think of melting. It’s not decreasing in size exclusively from melt which would make it thinner, as you are pointing out. There is a thing called shear in ice. The movement of the ice can create openings that are registered by satellite as a decrease. But it isn’t from melt.

    Steven Goddard explains it in this post:

    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/05/27/shear-ice-decline/

    There is a video in the post showing the ice moving but not melting. The movement creates an opening.

  81. rbateman, here’s a link to In Search Of… The Coming Ice Age

    Yep, it wasn’t pop culture… lol

  82. Boy…

    Now here’s a couple of scientists that will soooooo not be getting any research funding for their next scientific study…

    No alarmist doomsday scenario ?
    Bad scientists, bad !
    No cookie for you !

  83. Grumpy Old Man says:
    June 16, 2010 at 10:27 am

    Grumpy,

    Is AGW a failed theory, hypothesis, or model?

  84. Always the trolls go for the head-fake.
    Misdirecting attention from the developing La Nina in all the forecast models.
    Should be paying attention to S. Hem. Winter and what’s on our plates for November.
    What’s this now, round #3 of Boreal Hopscotch?
    You know what’s coming.
    Hint: Polar Ice volume & extent are the least of our worries.

  85. Amino, you might want to re-read a comment by Julienne at June 16, 2010 at 8:54 am.

    Or better yet, read the actual study:
    http://epic.awi.de/Publications/Haa2010b.pdf

    You’re all jumping on this as if it says the Arctic has completely recovered. It actually says there has been no further loss in the three areas surveyed from 2007. In fact, two out of three surveyed areas still showed decreased thickness (see page 17 of the study).

    Furthermore, it even suggests ice volume might have decreased as well:
    “However, the volume of older ice may have been less overall due to a lower areal coverage, and because our surveys were still spatially limited. ” (page 9)

    You should try to be a little more skeptic towards news article. They have a tendency to misinterpret and exaggerate the results of scientific studies. It is always better to check the sources.

  86. I like the term someone posted of a “Climate Scientologist”. A buddy of mine protests against Scientology and has a big sign of a UFO and alien with the caption “Not Just Another UFO Cult”.

    Climate Scientology: Not Just Another CO2 Cult!

  87. This is great – one solid experimental measurement blows away a whole pile of spurious modeling.

    A victory for deductive science over inductive. Karl Popper rest in peace! (Piomass – kiss my [snip])

  88. Latest temp at almost the pole.

    IABP PAWS Buoy latest 2010 weather data
    06/16/2109Z 89.144°N 50.483°W 0.5°C 1011.9mb 12.0° 7.0m/s

  89. phlogiston says:
    June 17, 2010 at 2:22 pm
    This is great – one solid experimental measurement blows away a whole pile of spurious modeling.

    Unless you look at the details.

  90. It’s probably too late to point out that this system does not actually measure ice thickness, but rather the time rate of decay of the electromagnetic field and/or the change in conductivity-thickness of the ice-water. Thickness is derived assuming things such as constant conductivity of ice (such as constant salt content – no fresh water mixing etc).

  91. To correct my earlier post, thickness is derived assuming things such as constant conductivity of ice, should have read salt water, not ice.
    The EM system detects the salt water. The laser altimeter measures the distance between the bird and the surface of the ice. An assumption is made that the salt water response is constant, therefore any change in amplitude is caused by a change in the distance between the bird and the salt water – the difference between the derived salt-water distance and the measured laser altimeter distance (the difference being ice thickness).
    The point I wanted to make is, this is an indirect measurement of ice thickness.
    A second point would be how much of the ice extent was sampled by this survey – 0.0001% or less.
    I`m a big fan of geophysics, but lets not drag a great science down to the level of climate science.

  92. Hypnos
    June 17, 2010 at 8:35 am

    It’s an odd math that says though it’s cold enough to have both area and concentration increase over the last three years total ice has decreased. And that ice can rot because it’s -51 degrees instead of -54.

    But that’s what we’re supposed to, and some have, believed.

  93. Hypnos

    and i see the word ‘may’ used, ice ‘may’ have decreased. That’s called CYA.

  94. Climate Models are Like Ouija Boards

    if a climate model says it can happen then let’s worry!! ;-)

  95. It’s nice to see that efforts on measuring ice go from drilling a hole, to DC3 to spaceships :-)

    Amino Acids in Meteorites, have you ever heard the expression “an empty vessel makes the most noise” ? :p

  96. Ya Andy, you’re right. It’s so unfortunate for a guy like me that they only surveyed areas that are thicker than expected and they missed those thinner than expected areas. Because after all those unsurveyed areas ‘may’ be not just thinner than expected but ‘may’ now be much thinner than expected in order to compensate for those surveyed areas that, as it turns out, are thicker than expected. So yes Andy, the PIOMAS graph ‘may’ still be right! And the unsurveyed ice ‘may’ be even more rotted than you thought!

    Attention! Attention! It’s safe for the trolls to come out from under the bridge, start using the word ‘may’, and go droning on and on about the PIOMAS graph, again!

    Glory be! Shout it from the housetops, “Hallelujah! The trolls are back in business!”

  97. Amino Acids in Meteorites says:
    June 16, 2010 at 11:27 pm

    P.F. says:
    June 16, 2010 at 8:28 am

    Wait. Just yesterday you posted that Arctic Ocean ice is retreating at 30-year record pace! I’m so confused. How can this be?

    Retreat isn’t really the correct idea. That would make you think of melting. It’s not decreasing in size exclusively from melt which would make it thinner, as you are pointing out. There is a thing called shear in ice. The movement of the ice can create openings that are registered by satellite as a decrease. But it isn’t from melt.

    —————————-
    First create confusion over concentration and volume. Now create confusion about sea ice area. “…openings that are registered by satellite as a decrease” Sea ice area is measured as continuous if 15% or 30% is ice covered, depending on which site you look at. Hence, a few openings would be ignored as the ice extent would certainly be more than 15% or 30%. Ergo, no issue, the openings are not counted, melted or not.

  98. Amino Acids in Meteorites says:
    June 16, 2010 at 4:14 pm
    June 16, 2010 at 4:15 pm
    June 16, 2010 at 4:16 pm
    June 16, 2010 at 4:17 pm
    June 16, 2010 at 4:19 pm
    June 16, 2010 at 4:19 pm
    June 16, 2010 at 4:22 pm
    June 16, 2010 at 4:25 pm
    June 16, 2010 at 4:27 pm
    June 16, 2010 at 4:33 pm
    June 16, 2010 at 4:34 pm
    June 16, 2010 at 4:35 pm
    —————————–
    Having made PIOMAS the bogey, how about PIPS 2.0
    Silly me, of course, PIOMAS is wrong and PIPS 2.0 is right!

    PIPS 2.0 often over-predicts
    the amount of ice in the Barents Sea and therefore
    often places the ice edge too far south.

    Although PIPS 2.0 can predict
    large-scale polynyas, it does not have the capability
    to produce smaller polynyas or leads or to provide
    guidance on lead orientation.
    http://www.tos.org/oceanography/issues/issue_archive/issue_pdfs/15_1/15_1_preller_et_al.pdf

  99. Amino Acids:

    So a study comes out saying ice thickness has remained within natural variability since the big decline in 2007 ( which, in other words, still means it’s near the bottom of the 30 years average), while also suggesting volume could be lower.

    You spin it into “Ice has recovered, it’s as thick as ever, no reason for worry” without even reading the study.

    I point out that is not what the study says.

    You go off on a completely unrelated tangent about the word “may” and ignore the very substantial point I made – i.e. that the study doesn’t say what you think.

    I believe your accusations of trollish behavior are misdirected.

  100. Amino Acids in Meteorites says: Stuff

    Man, it seems like you still have not read the study. Or registered the dates they flew. Or looked at their tracklines and measurement locations.
    This isn’t about PIOMAS, it’s that these flights were last done in April 2009, over a very, very limited area near shore.

  101. There’s discontinuity that I don’t understand at http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/meant80n.uk.php For a few charts, the first value at the beginning of the year is not even close to the last value of the prior year. Am I misconstruing something? For example, the chart for year 1999 appears to end up at about 245K but year 2000 begins with a value of about 262K. Another example is between 1976 to 1977.

  102. Mike M says:
    June 18, 2010 at 11:17 am
    There’s discontinuity that I don’t understand at http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/meant80n.uk.php

    Like many (most?) here, what you are missing is that it’s output of a model – it’s not from measurements. Read the bit on the lower left under “Calculation of the Arctic Mean Temperature”

  103. jakers says:
    June 18, 2010 at 10:54 am

    Jakers, thanks for a touch of reality. I did the following calculations. Taking the late start melt date of 31 March the ice extent for 2010 was 14.41 million KM2 and on the same date the 2009 extent was 13.97 million KM2. Hence, 2009 had a head start of 440,000 KM2.

    As at 18 June the 2009 extent was 10.6 and 2010 at 9.93 KM2. Therefore, from a head start of 440,000 KM2 as of March 31, 2009 now lags 2010 by 677,500 KM2. This means that between 31 March and June 18, the 2009 melt was 3.37 million KM2 and 2010 4.48 million KM2. Hence the 2010 melt over that period exceeded the 2009 melt by 1.11 million KM2.

    A projection;
    Assumptions are; (1) the 2010 ice melt to end as it did in 2009 on 13 September.
    (2) the 2010 melt from 18 June to 13 September will equal that of 2009.

    On 18 June 2009 the extent in 2009 was 10.6 million KM2 and it dropped to 5.25 million KM2 on 13 September. Total drop over that period 5.35 million KM2. If I deduct that amount of melt from the 2010 extent of 9.93 million KM2, the projected extent for 2010 will be 4.57 million KM2, which puts it between 2007 (at 4.25) and 2008 (at 4.71) million KM2.
    Prior to the record melt in 2007 the average melt (June 18 to Sept 13) 2003-2007 was 4.67 million KM2. Over 2007/8/9 the average melt was 5.73 million KM2, hence an increase of 1 million KM2. My projection for 2010 is therefore conservative and the possibility of 2009 surpassing 2007 remains.

  104. “… and the possibility of 2009 surpassing 2007 remains.”

    Shouldn’t that be, “… and the possibility of 2009 2010’s melt-back surpassing 2007‘s remains”?

  105. Roger Knights says:
    June 19, 2010 at 7:34 am

    Mea Culpa, I stand corrected. A bit tired from watching World Cup soccer. Melt is notching up, last initial figure for June 19 shows a drop of 120,000 KM2 from June 18.
    2009 now lags 2010 by 720,000 KM2 over period 31March to June 19. May be dragged back somewhat because between June 30 and July 5, 2009 had five 100,000 KM2 plus days. My guess is that the claw back will be marginal because there are large areas of 50% or less ice cover. When they reach critical point (less than 15%) the measured sea ice area will take a dive. Info taken from AMSR-E

Comments are closed.