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.
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?
“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!
“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.
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
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.
The thickness had “changed little since 2007, and remained within the expected range of natural variability,”
Why is this man believing real world data?
something funny happened on the way to making a computer model:
“””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!
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.
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.
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:
:-))
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.
why are people haveing a go at Chris Y? Cann you not see a ‘smiley face’ that denotes sarcasm (in this case):
Please be a bit more careful reading the message before attaching the messenger.
Reply: Ok, that’s enough. ~ ctm
You’re right. Looking at it now it is a little overboard.
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”.
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.
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…)
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:
http://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.
rbateman, here’s a link to In Search Of… The Coming Ice Age
Yep, it wasn’t pop culture… lol
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 !
Grumpy Old Man says:
June 16, 2010 at 10:27 am
Grumpy,
Is AGW a failed theory, hypothesis, or model?
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.
No trolls? They never saw a plane before?
Phil? Busy?
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.
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!