Frank Lansner generated this graph from Navy PIPS data, showing the significant increase in Arctic ice thickness over the last few years.
You can see why NSIDC only likes to talk about 5+ year old ice. (Because it hasn’t yet been five years since 2007.)
This can be expected from the current negative NAO. Climate modelers know sea ice volume decline is tied to positive NAO as we saw from 1980 untill a year ago. The timing of the Cryosat 2 launch with the onset of negative NAO will document the build up of sea ice volume for the next thirty years. This is AGW’s worst nightmare.
http://ioc3.unesco.org/oopc/state_of_the_ocean/atm/nao.php
Hi Steven!
Thanks for posting and a site thats worth checking out every day!
Some claims, that PIPS2 data from US NAVY is not to be trusted, at least when comparing over many years.
This opinion is not surpricing since the ice volume 1998 was the same as 2010 according to PIPS2m US NAVY.
But its getting harder and harder to be alarmist: The PIPS2 data several times shows the ability for thick ice volume to explode again and again, showing that even from very low level, ice vlumen can explode. Certainly not the sign of a death spiral but rather the signature of an Arctic ice extent the is just having normal big variations.
And worse: The 2010 year itself confirms the explosion of ice volume – so darn, the “argument” that PIPS2 had problems when comparing over a period of years doesnt work here… One have to invent new argument against PIPS2 🙂
K.R: Frank and keep up the good work
PS: By the way, as you showed the other day, Steven, SUmmit GReenland temperatures are headed for all time record low… tonight. Latest prognisis I saw was – 64C. I think the all time Greenland record low is – 62,8C….
An interesting read is; http://www.arctic.noaa.gov/essay_wadhams.html
About how ice forms in the arctic. 1st year ice (congelation growth) typically reaches 1.5 to 2 metres thickness. In 2007 a dramatic 1.5 million sq/km of sea ice was lost and expected to recover, at least partially. In 2008 .5 million sq/km was recovered and became 1 year ice. In 2009 another .5 million sq/km was recovered, making the first recovery 2 year ice and the second recovery one year ice,
The ice recovered in 2008 was likely to be 2.5 to 3 metres thick based on the finding that multi year ice is typically 3-3.5 m thick. In 2010 the recovery reversed to the 2008 level.
Close to the Greenland coast (North) and Alaska (East) there used to be a lot of Ice, more than 5m thick. This is stacked ice driven by wind and waves. The thickness of the ice is not proportional to years old. Even the graph above show no recovery of this ice. It is doomed to disappear by 2015. I predict that the minimum extent 2012 will be lower than the record 2007.
Most of the MYI was lost between 1988 and 1996
Steve,
Any interest in setting up a “contest” here for predictions on this year’s Arctic minimum? Maybe have several deadlines, such as the equinox, solstice, etc? Just a thought…people have mentioned it at WUWT in the comments before, but I’ve seen no evidence that Anthony is interested in such a thing.
-Scott
My prediction is the the Arctic ice sheet will cover Toronto by 2400, Molson beer will be ice-brewed in St Louis, and the Yankees will win the pennant that year !!
Put that in your pipe and smoke it !
I guess not after his last shifting goal posts debacle.
I’ve posed this question to a few climatologist and climate sites, but never found anyone that has an answer; it’s very much related to this data.
Has there been any research or hypothesis put forward as to the seeming tilt away from each other of the polar ice growths? That is to say the ice growths of West Antarctica and East Arctic Circle have experienced in recent decades? That’s probably stated poorly, so let me try to explain my question a bit further.
The Arctic Ice Growth of Greenland: I read that Satellite radar data shows a growth, on average, of 6cm/year of the Greenland ice. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/11/051107080830.htm (The cited article explains how some global warming models explain this with warmer, moister air precipitating out on higher mountain elevations) This “west” side (Greenland) of the Arctic seems to be the “stickiest” side of the northern ice sheet, as opposed to the “east” side (Alaska). You can view the 30 year satellite images at the National Snow and Ice Data Center to see what I mean. http://nsidc.org/images/arcticseaicenews/20101004_Figure7.mov
The Antarctic Ice growth: I also read that it is known to be melting and growing on the opposite side of the Arctic Circle ice growth. That is to say the “west” side (South America) has shrunk, while the “east” side (Australia) has grown. http://www.news.com.au/antarctic-ice-is-growing-not-melting-away/story-0-1225700043191 It would appear to the untrained eye, such as mine, that the two centers of the ice poles (different than the 90 degree physical location of the poles) are drifting in a linear direction; one towards the east and one towards the west, as if staying in alignment with each other as they drift.
Is there any current scientific hypothesis, theory, or research being done into this that could be reviewed, or am I missing crucial facts that would lead my observations elsewhere?
Pingback: Global Warming Hoax Weekly Round-Up, Jan 20th 2011 « The Daily Bayonet
stevengoddard says:
February 21, 2011 at 10:27 pm
Most of the MYI was lost between 1988 and 1996
****
A moot point, be it accurate or not, it is lost!
I stand by my prediction, max extent 2011 is already stalling.
chuckarama says:
January 19, 2011 at 4:46 pm
“The Arctic Ice Growth of Greenland: I read that Satellite radar data shows a growth, on average, of 6cm/year of the Greenland ice.”
****
No it doesn’t, it says;
“…The result is a mixed picture, with a net increase of 6.4 centimetres per year in the interior area above 1500 metres elevation. Below that altitude, the elevation-change rate is minus 2.0 cm per year,…”
“…The trend below 1500 metres however does not include the steeply-sloping marginal areas where current altimeter data are unusable.
The spatially averaged increase is 5.4 cm per year over the study area,…”
“…Modelling studies of the Greenland Ice Sheet mass balance under greenhouse global warming have shown that temperature increases up to about 3ºC lead to positive mass balance changes at high elevations – due to snow accumulation – and negative at low elevations – due to snow melt exceeding accumulation….”
****
It seems this matter is far from settled, a lot has evolved since 2005; the opening paragraph reads definitive when it actually isn’t.
****
“Is there any current scientific hypothesis, theory, or research being done into this that could be reviewed, or am I missing crucial facts that would lead my observations elsewhere?”
****
No there isn’t, the hypothesis is too improbable, but I appreciate the lateral thinking.