Last year people kept telling me that PIPS is evil and Cryosat2 will prove it. Now that we have Cryosat2 data which makes PIPS look conservative, alarmists are complaining that Cryosat2 is also evil.
I propose an adjustment. Arctic ice is expanding due to thermal expansion from global warming. We should subtract 0.3 meters per meter from Cryosat2 data – to account for thermal expansion of the ice caused by man-made CO2. When Arctic temperatures get up to 100C, the ice is going to become extremely thick and we will need to make even larger adjustments.
Say, I thought ice would begin to melt at 100C. At least get mushy.
I dunno, but if I don’t miss my guess, the temperature climbing from -20°C to -14°C should melt all of the ice.
Steve, Cryosat 2 is not evil, it is simply complicated to retrieve sea ice thickness from laser and radar altimeters because in the case of the radar altimeter while it’s believed that the radar penetrates through the snowpack, this is not always the case, it depends on the snowpack properties, if there has been flooding of the snow/ice interface and layers of ice in the snowpack itself. While the multiyear ice estimates seem reasonable, some of the first-year ice thickness values are too thick in this initial map.
I notice you are not yet discussing the fact that even in July the ice extent is below the 2007 line. Given the continued pace of ice loss it would appear that the ice is likely thinner than the Cryosat map (or PIPS) indicates. yes there is a strong Beaufort Sea High as in 2007, but the Dipole anomaly and the associated wind anomalies are not as strong as in 2007 and yet the pace of ice loss is not slowing. This would suggest the ice is thinner than PIPS or Cryosat indicates. Some in situ observations of level first-year ice in the Barents showed that the ice never exceeded 1 m in thickness.
Julienne,
Looking at the ice edge in the satellite maps, it looks to me like there is a lot more compaction going on than melt. What do you think?
http://www.arctic.io/observations/8/2011-07-09/6-N72.214733-W159.487042
By the time Cryosat 2 gets recalibrated 20% of the ice volume will be gone.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UYSMm0Oj5HU&feature=related
And thus was brought forth An yll wynde that blowth, as Adolf gave birth to it again and again.
That is so weird how ice melts in the summer now. It never used to do that.
> That is so weird how ice melts in the summer now. It never used to do that.
Do I smell an upcoming analysis?
Thanks for adding the permalink label!
http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2011/07/10/updated-jaxa-july-ice-animation/
http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2011/07/10/is-the-ice-moving-or-melting/
Steve,
thank you for your sense of humor… 😉
We measure SIE because it’s a more repeatable measurement with smaller error bars – not because it’s the information we *really* want. If we could generate area maps with correlated thickness to a similar level of accuracy, then that’s what we’d use. Area and volume are better indicators of the ‘state of the arctic’ than extent; but measurement of area and volume are inherently less accurate.
Even as we develop better algorithms to decipher area and volume from the satellite data we’ll continue to look at SIE because we can compare SIE to past years using the same methodology; comparing apples to apples. What new methodologies give us are (hopefully) better and more precise information about the arctic.
Extent is always dependent on three factors; melt, compaction, and transport. This year transport has given the Greenland Sea a much higher extent than 2007. In the East Siberian Sea we’ve seen low concentration and very little compaction. Over the last couple of weeks the ice between the New Siberian Islands and Cherskly has actually increased in extent – not because it’s freezing over, but because weather patterns have allowed it to diffuse into a mottled layer of ‘rotten ice.’ At this point in the melt season it’s probably wise to note that the Greenland Sea and East Siberian Sea are often jokingly referred to as ‘where the ice pack goes to die.’
The final number we attach to the annual SIE minimum should always be taken in context. Trends are more important than individual years. The trends for volume, area, and extent are all pointing in the same direction – down.
The age and thickness of the ice in the Arctic Basin has increased significantly since 2008. As you point out, the other regions are largely meaningless. Your own argument defeats your conclusion.
Steve, I never said the other areas are irrelevant. The Beaufort Sea (and the gyre) are the flywheel that govern the arctic. Hardly irrelevant.
If you compare just arctic basin numbers, area and volume are down in comparison to 2007. So, not only are you putting words in my mouth – your conclusion is wrong.
http://nsidc.org/images/arcticseaicenews/20110405_Figure5.png
Obviously the only way to claim MYI ice is increasing is to cherry-pick a starting point within the last 5 years. Not much statistical relevance.
But up in comparison to 2008.
WOW! That is good to know! SIE has less error than area which considers pixel with greater than 30% to be 100%. By my calculations that equals a possible error rate of up to 70% for area. Extent considers pixels with 15% as 100% leaving a possible error rate of up to 85%.
This means that 85% is less than 70%.
Apples to Apples is also questionable as the quality and resolution of the equipment used for the photos has improved since 1979 and more over there seems to have been “Corrections” in the land Mask. We are talking fruit salad here rather than apples to oranges.
Is it possible there might have also been some improvement in the Al-Gore-Rhythms used to process this dogs breakfast! ( I personally feed my dogs higher quality food)
“Extent considers pixels with 15% as 100% leaving a possible error rate of up to 85%.”
Hey boy wonder – you’re a moron 🙂 No, remove the smiley face – you deserve the straight up, “You’re a moron.”
Go read about the difference in extent and area as it pertains to sea ice before you bother chiming in again. I don’t have time to give you a class. Extent does not have a possible error of 85% or anywhere close to 85%. Only someone with a complete lack of understanding would think so.
HEY speedy:
From your favorite WIKI:
Sea ice extent
Sea Ice in the Arctic Ocean fluctuates with the seasons.
Sea ice extent is the area of sea with a specified amount of ice, usually 15%. To satellite microwave sensors, surface melt appears to be open water rather than water on top of sea ice. So, while reliable for measuring area most of the year, the microwave sensors are prone to underestimating the actual ice concentration and area when the surface is melting.[11]
What part of greater than 15% do you not understand?
Linky to WIKI:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Measurement_of_sea_ice
It is as reliable as anything else they claim about “Climate”!
This whole line of research reminds me of a dog chasing its tail but a dog probably accomplishes something.
Ice more than 3+ years of age is down approximately 40% since 2008. The ‘significant’ increases you talk about don’t exist. Ice is at best back to the long-term trend (down). With the caveat that ice older than 3+ years – which comprised HALF the ice-pack in the 80s, and a third in the 90s, and a quarter in the early 2000s – now comprises less than one tenth of the ice pack.
Maslanik’s recent paper makes this visually clear.
http://neven1.typepad.com/.a/6a0133f03a1e37970b015390055882970b-800wi
2011 – 2008 = 3
Next year, the three year old ice will be four years old.
Steve – what percentage of 3rd year ice survived to see a 4th year from 2008 to 2009, or from ’09 to ’10, or from ’10 to ’11?
In 2009, most of the MYI was located near the Fram Strait. Last year it was locate further west and this year is located even further west. NSIDC graphs show MYI has increased each year since 2008.
Therefore, it is safe to infer that more has been forming than melting.
I do not recall reading about the Birthday parties for the ice and the Birth Certificates appear to be lost.
What happens in the Arctic represents only a very small region of the globe. The quality of results coming out of the research from that region shows the globe would be better of by closing out the research projects and let the folks doing the research find meaningful employment, They need harvesters in some of the farming regions.
Coming from someone that doesn’t understand the difference between SIA and SIE — or for that matter how to calculate measurement uncertainties — I think the value of your opinion has a net worth of .02 (+.00U -.02U; units in US$, K = 3).
The biggest difference I notice between ‘warmist’ and ‘denialist’ sites is that on skeptic sites worthless *supportive* commenters are rarely corrected by the host even when they spout the most insane drivel. On most warmista sites hosts correct even supportive commenters when they have the science, math, or history all wrong.
SIA measurements have larger errors than SIE measurements. That’s a fact. Not debatable. If your math tells you otherwise, then you’re operating under a misconception. I.e., you don’t know what you’re talking about. If Steve were kind he would tell you so – otherwise you’ll continue to make a fool of yourself in the future my making the same ignorant mistake.
Note: ignorance is not necessarily a pejorative; we’re all ignorant on different subjects – you just happen to be ignorant on the measurement of sea ice. Of course when you try to speak with authority on a subject you don’t understand, then mere ignorance turns into either stupidity or insanity.
So I take it that you are forecasting a decrease in MYI this year?
Well, everyone certainly got their comeuppance again, didn’t they…….
The current method of “Measuring” sea ice is junk science or more properly described as Pathological. It is a fairy tale at best. It could be described as a welfare jobs program for those not qualified to do real work.
Personally I do not Give a squat about the difference between SIA, SIE, or SIC as they have little to no relation to reality. I live and work in the real world and not some simulated world of virtual reality where you just adjust facts to fit the desired outcome!
Ice more than 3+ years of age is down approximately 40% since 2008. The ‘significant’ increases you talk about don’t exist. Ice is at best back to the long-term trend (down). With the caveat that ice older than 4+ years – which comprised HALF the ice-pack in the 80s, and a third in the 90s, and a quarter in the early 2000s – now comprises less than one tenth of the ice pack.
Maslanik’s recent paper makes this visually clear.
http://neven1.typepad.com/.a/6a0133f03a1e37970b015390055882970b-800wi
“The primary instruments aboard CryoSat-2 are SIRAL-2,[18] the SAR/Interferometric Radar Altimeters;[12] which uses radar to determine and monitor the spacecraft’s altitude in order to measure the elevation of the ice.”
“A careful analysis of satellite radar altimetry echoes can distinguish between those backscattered from the open ocean, new ice or multi-year ice. The difference between the elevation of the echoes from snow/sea ice and open water gives the elevation of the ice above the ocean; the ice thickness can computed from this.[4] The technique has a limited vertical resolution – perhaps 0.5m – …………….
……………………..and is easily confused by the presence of even small amounts of open water.”
Can someone tell me again how much shipping has increased in the Arctic in the last decade?
How many Ice Breakers have been added to the fleets of the countries and how many ice hardened vessels have been added. They did not build them to sit in the harbor! The USSR started shipping there in the 30s and have been expanding since. Sort of like sea going UHI!
Gramps, Arctic shipping has increased over 100 times in the past decade……
…………………….”and is easily confused by the presence of even small amounts of open water.”
“CryoSat-2 is a European Space Agency environmental research satellite which was launched in April 2010?
I say good for them because they are doing commerce more efficiently. however the byproduct of shipping is reducing ice so the researchers are P#SSING in the “Wind” and it is a head wind at that.
Kevin O’Neill says:
August 7, 2011 at 2:56 pm
Ice more than 3+ years of age is down approximately 40% since 2008.
======================================================
With careful analysis, and a limited vertical resolution ~1/2m, ice thickness can be measured from the height of the ice above water….
….which is easily confused by even small amounts of open water
From a satellite that is only one year old…………..
“CryoSat-2 is a European Space Agency environmental research satellite which was launched in April 2010”
Ice more than 1 year of age was not even measured by this equipment…………..
Latitude: “Ice more than 1 year of age was not even measured by this equipment …………..”
Yeah, and your point is ??? We’ve been measuring sea ice volume, area, extent, thickness, drift, concentration, etc long before Cryosat II went into orbit (in fact, they call it ‘II” because there was a ‘I’). The graph I linked to is from Maslanik et al 2011. Read the paper before you start arguing methodology (which I’m sure you aren’t qualified to do anyways).
Kevin, Are you the export that produced this? . . . . http://climatesanity.files.wordpress.com/2010/07/kevin-oneills-proof2.jpg
Now that’s FUNNY!
uh, there’s a “II” because there never was a “I”……..”I” crashed
Kevin, Cryosat-2 was cross-calibrated with data from Jason-1, Jason-2 and Envisat,
In their 2008 report, they admit that when Jason-1 and 2 drifted away from the computer models, they were calibrated back to what the computer models said they should say.
The same with Envisat. Envisat was calibrated to what Jason-2 said, when Envisat drifted from that calibration, Envisat was calibrated to what the climate computer models said sea levels and temperatures should be…………..
Envisat is drifting again, they can’t explain it…..in other words, it’s not producing the results the climate computer models say it should. Nothing to do with real life, the climate computer models.
Cryosat-2 is cross-calibrated with data from Jason 1 and 2 and Envisat, in other words, Cryosat-2 is also calibrated to what the computer climate models say it should say…..
How do you feel about that?……………………………
lol, this is a riotous conversation. 2007 is touted as the low mark for arctic ice….. yet, some don’t wish to acknowledge this event when considering multi-year ice. Apparently, it is important for some to believe multi-year ice isn’t increasing…… Somehow, the events of 2002 or 1999 seem more relevant to today than the events of 2007…….. love the logic.
Being one that wishes the ice to melt, for no other reason than to show the world our climate and survival isn’t dependent upon a chunk of ice in an ocean, I’m never surprised at the logical acrobatics some will perform to get an answer that corresponds with their beliefs. Happens…… a lot. Given the history of the arctic, we can be reasonably sure that there had been much less ice in the arctic ocean than today as recent as 1300 A.D. (See many of Steve’s recent posts on Greenland) Somehow mankind survived that traumatic experience.
The is good reason to believe that sea ice in the region may have been less in the 30s than today also.
True, and the 50s also…… sadly history, geology and archeology having given way to the sophist’s paleoclimatology machinations. One day real science will be seen as useful, again.
At this point is is like the Phoenix and needs to be consumed by fire to be born anew.
A phoenix is a mythical bird with a colorful plumage and a tail of gold and scarlet (or purple, blue, and green according to some legends). It has a 500 to 1000 year life-cycle, near the end of which it builds itself a nest of twigs that then ignites; both nest and bird burn fiercely and are reduced to ashes, from which a new, young phoenix or phoenix egg arises, reborn anew to live again. The new phoenix is destined to live as long as its old self. In some stories, the new phoenix embalms the ashes of its old self in an egg made of myrrh and deposits it in the Egyptian city of Heliopolis (literally “sun-city” in Greek). It is said that the bird’s cry is that of a beautiful song. The Phoenix’s ability to be reborn from its own ashes implies that it is immortal, though in some stories the new Phoenix is merely the offspring of the older one. In very few stories they are able to change into people.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phoenix_%28mythology%29
SG:”So I take it that you are forecasting a decrease in MYI this year?”
I don’t know – ask me in October. There’s a lot of weather still to occur in the next 7 weeks. What I can predict is that the long-term trend toward decreasing area, extent, and volume will continue and MYI will never return to the levels we saw as recently as 2006. Volume, SIE, SIA, and MYI statistics are all interesting, but taking anyone of them as THE statistic to gauge the ‘health’ of the Arctic ice-pack is rather foolish. Nor should climate trends be inferred from 1yr, 5yr, or even 10 yr datasets – though 10 at least starts to become statistically significant.
Funny Boy! 10 years is only a small portion of natural variable weather in that region. Come back when you have a better understanding of weather because “Climate” is the study of historical weather patterns.
We are seeing the repetition of a pattern that that has graced the Arctic region many times in the past and the extent of the pattern could be as long as 80 years. Variations within variations as that is part of a thousand year pattern which is part of a 40 thousand year.
Kevin, Cryosat-2 was cross-calibrated with data from Jason-1, Jason-2 and Envisat,
In their 2008 report, they admit that when Jason-1 and 2 drifted away from the computer models, they were calibrated back to what the computer models said they should say.
The same with Envisat. Envisat was calibrated to what Jason-2 said, when Envisat drifted from that calibration, Envisat was calibrated to what the climate computer models said sea levels and temperatures should be…………..
Envisat is drifting again, they can’t explain it…..in other words, it’s not producing the results the climate computer models say it should. Nothing to do with real life, the climate computer models.
Cryosat-2 is cross-calibrated with data from Jason 1 and 2 and Envisat, in other words, Cryosat-2 is also calibrated to what the computer climate models say it should say…..
How do you feel about that?……………………………
Lat:
You are just trying to confuse a “good” fantasy by introducing reality. Well maybe not so good! 🙂
Kevin’s a joke…..he thinks I’m not qualified….and he thinks there was a Cryosat-1 measuring ice before Cryosat-2
Maybe this will help the boy face reality:
http://www.esa.int/SPECIALS/Cryosat/index.html
Excerpt:
21 June 2011 The first map of sea-ice thickness from ESA’s CryoSat mission was revealed today at the Paris Air and Space Show. This new information is set to change our understanding of the complex relationship between ice and climate.
There is a lot of history related to the Cryosat project, I mean it is more that a month since releasing the first images. Great “Apples to Apples” comparison!
This is better than a three ring circus and the only thing lacking here is our resident juggler.