Growth Of Thick Ice Since 2008

Posted on March 18, 2011 by Tony Heller

The animation above shows March 17 US Navy PIPS 2 ice, greater than 2.5 metres thick  – since 2008. Looks like a recovery to me.

http://www7320.nrlssc.navy.mil/pips2/archive/index.html?filetype=Thickness

About Tony Heller

Just having fun
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

29 Responses to Growth Of Thick Ice Since 2008

  1. AndyW says:
    March 18, 2011 at 10:43 am

    Until more reliable methods of determining actual thickness values I think we should stick to extent. Given that there is currently no recovery.

    Andy

    Reply
  3. Ivan says:
    March 18, 2011 at 11:25 am

    This guy can fix it:
    “BLOWING UP THE NORTH POLE.
    A SCHEME FOR OPENING THE ARCTIC SEA BY DYNAMITE.
    Did Nature intend the Arctic Sea to be open, and the climate moderate? And is it possible to do by means of dynamite what Nature has unaccountably omitted to do?”
    http://trove.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/article/3514009?
    ~June 1890

    Reply
    • stevengoddard says:
      March 18, 2011 at 11:33 am

      Ahh, so Quebec is in the Arctic

      Reply
    • Scarlet Pumpernickel says:
      March 18, 2011 at 11:34 am

      Just checked the chart, and we still have not recovered back to the Holocene Climatic Optimum warmth, I’m really worried we won’t make it

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Holocene_Temperature_Variations.png

      Reply
      • Scarlet Pumpernickel says:
        March 18, 2011 at 11:35 am

        Maybe we should geo-engineer so that we get back to the temperature it was 6000 years ago? It was the Climate Optimum

        We could put corks in all the volcanoes so that they don’t release SO2?

        Reply
      • AndyW says:
        March 18, 2011 at 11:39 am

        We are talking ice extent over the last few years, as per Steve’s original post. If you want to post about something else then post in the relevant thread, or perhaps Steve can give you a guest post?

        Andy

        Reply
      • Scarlet Pumpernickel says:
        March 18, 2011 at 11:44 am

        But why shouldn’t we aim to get to the same temperatures as 6000 years ago, it was the “Climate Optimum”. It was much warmer than today. You’re just confused wanting it to be cooler, we should be trying to get to the Climate Optimum.

        See an Ice free Arctic is the aim http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globalwarming/images/polarbigb.gif and for some reason all the Polar bears survived, as they are here today. Actually there probably was more life on earth then today, as the temperatures were more optimum. Including advancements in man’s technology.

        Reply
      • Scarlet Pumpernickel says:
        March 18, 2011 at 11:57 am

        The spatio-temporal pattern of peak Holocene warmth (Holocene thermal maximum, HTM) is traced over 140 sites across the Western Hemisphere of the Arctic (0–180W; north of ~60N). Paleoclimate inferences based on a wide variety of proxy indicators provide clear evidence for warmer-than-present conditions at 120 of these sites. At the 16 terrestrial sites where quantitative estimates have been obtained, local HTM temperatures (primarily summer estimates) were on average 1.6 +- 0.8 deg C higher than present (approximate average of the 20th century), but the warming was time-transgressive across the western Arctic. As the precession-driven summer insolation anomaly peaked 12–10 ka (thousands of calendar years ago), warming was concentrated in northwest North America, while cool conditions lingered in the northeast. Alaska and northwest Canada experienced the HTM between ca 11 and 9 ka, about 4000 yr prior to the HTM in northeast Canada

        Reply
      • Scarlet Pumpernickel says:
        March 18, 2011 at 12:00 pm

        Stupid Question : Where did the polar bears disappear to during the Holocene Optimum?

        Did they holiday in Hawaii?

        Reply
      • Scarlet Pumpernickel says:
        March 18, 2011 at 12:02 pm

        Maybe the polar bears in the Holocene Climatic Optimum migrated south and interbred with the grizzlies, so they produced the larger Kodiak bears.

        Or maybe “Lost” is not as far fetched as it seems, polar bears living on tropical islands?

        Reply
    • Paul H says:
      March 18, 2011 at 1:50 pm

      Don’t forget on the other side of the hemisphere there is plenty of extra snow cover in Siberia to offset loss ice in non arctic areas around Canada. It just happens to be on land , that’s all.

      Reply
  5. Mike Davis says:
    March 18, 2011 at 1:06 pm

    Ice extent is not stable. Ice extent is an indication of how cold and the wind conditions in the Arctic region. Wind plays a greater part in ice extent than temperatures.
    The current satellite record is only enough to say the conditions change and only a fool would believe they provide evidence of some long term trend because historical records show just the opposite.

    Reply
  6. Scott says:
    March 18, 2011 at 4:15 pm

    So when will we be allowed to start posting our official predictions of minimum ice extent and/or area here? How about March 31? I want to see people put down solid numbers with uncertainties even too…

    -Scott

    Reply
  7. bubbagyro says:
    March 19, 2011 at 3:20 am

    Instead of bogus comparison with 1978, just after the coldest period in 100 years, why does not someone show the moving average comparison. I would like to see today vs. 5, 10, and 20 year moving averages, the way every other average, from stock market to wheat yields, is done. Why is the average anchored in a high point? Does anyone know how to do this?

    Reply
    • suyts says:
      March 19, 2011 at 3:27 am

      It makes for a better story? Or, for some ungodly reason some one thinks the 70s was the ideal climate for the world? But, likely, it is about the time we could accurately measure the thing. Which, of course, then it is assumed that it is always suppose to be like that. Which really doesn’t make any sense, because that’s about the same time we were able to measure the ozone hole, and it was assumed that it wasn’t suppose to be like that and it was our fault…….go figure.

      Reply
      • bubbagyro says:
        March 19, 2011 at 5:23 am

        I’m glad you bring up the ozone “hole”. That observation is what started this whole descent into pseudoscience. No one has ever commented on my original observation that ozone is special of all the atmospheric gases, in that it is paramagnetic. A paramagnetic gas—imagine. And it conforms somehow to the magnetic lines of force that proliferate from the polar regions which ebb and flow. Let’s think about the ramifications for awhile, because, even though I am a synthetic organic chemist, I have no idea what the conclusions may be at this point. It has to mean, at the very least, that, unlike other gases that diffuse from high to low concentrations until they are mixed, ozone molecules are attracted or repelled from magnetic field lines, and concentrate in ways that are different from other miscible gases in the atmosphere. I’ll stop there…

        Reply
      • suyts says:
        March 19, 2011 at 5:59 am

        “I’ll stop there…”

        lol…….bubba, you should have stopped earlier. You’ve given me too much to consider.

        I don’t know, and I haven’t considered much about the ozone lately. Although, I did read something recently that mentioned a growth and then shrinkage and then growth, something I would consider a respiration. It is appearing, to me, that ozone and the hole is just another equilibrium seeking mechanism to the climate.

        Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *