I generated the graph below by dividing PIOMAS ice volume by UIUC ice area.
It shows that ice thickness used to increase by 1.5 metres over the winter, but now it only increases by half that much. This is complete nonsense – the ice is thinner now and should increase by more than it used to, because the water has less insulation between it and the air.
PIOMAS is a critical tool for Arctic alarmists, because it allows the brain-damaged faithful to believe that the Arctic is going to become ice-free.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m3dZl3yfGpc
The freezing rate is probably not much changed whether the Arctic temperature is 25 below or 30 below. So the difference has to be underlying ocean temperature and current.
Is there any indication of accelerated Arctic ocean currents or increased water temperature over the past several decades? Absent those, it would be hard to rationalize the PIOMAS trends.
Modeling and simulations are the better than sliced bread for the ass wipes!
Chewer,
PIOMAS uses real world data from satellites and the US Navy to establish their trends. The US and Canadian Navies are so certain that the Arctic is changing they are drafting a unique armada of ships to deal with this new environment and Canada will establish a new Arctic naval base to oversee the expected increase in maritime traffic.
I expect that monkeys will fly out of your ass.
The CIA was certain in 1974 that global cooling was the biggest threat to the US.
Military intelligence is an oxymoron.
Steve,
I seriously doubt that, but I will accept it as one of the CIA’s numerous planning papers if you can produce evidence in support of your assertion.
But your remark has nothing to do with the submarine sonar OBSERVATIONS that the US Navy has been making for decades below the Arctic circle. This real-world data is fed to PIOMAS and is critical, along with satellite OBSERVATIONS, in establishing their trends.
And, as I said, the Navy is so certain of their data that they are now actively drafting an entirely new armada of ships to deal with this new Arctic environment. Plus the energy companies are doing somethin similar and both the Russian and Canadian navies are gearing up for maritime duties on their northern shores.
And yet, in the face of this overwhelming evidence you still persist in your “PIOMAS is corrupt” fantasies.
I have published the 1974 CIA paper dozens of times. Stop being so lazy.
Steve,
I repeat, What the CIA said or didn’t say in 1974 is meaningless to the discussion of Arctic ice and has nothing to do with PIOMAS trends or the US Navy sonar observations.
ROFLMAO – The CIA was worried in 1974 that expanding Arctic ice was causing extreme weather, droughts, floods ……….
Steve,
The year is 2013 and the discussion is about REAL-WORLD OBSERVATIONS.
You are so full of it. The Navy shows ice twice as thick as PIOMAS
http://www7320.nrlssc.navy.mil/hycomARC/navo/arcticictn_nowcast_anim30d.gif
Steve,
And yet the US Navy are creating a whole new fleet of ships and all the energy companies are producing entirely new technologies and both shipping companies and northern navies are preparing for a shrinking Arctic — go figure.
Eisenhower warned about the Military-Industrial Complex. Obama took it as a blueprint.
I think this time around the CIA has figured out that their staff had nothing to do, which is why they probably closed down their “intelligence” centre.
http://www.pri.org/stories/science/environment/cia-closes-down-intelligence-center-focused-on-climate-change-12285.html
RE: T.O.O – “The US and Canadian Navies are so certain…”
Shell is so certain, that they abandoned the Arctic, and last fall fled from an 82 mile long iceberg that NSIDC said wasn’t there.
http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2013-02-27/national/37325620_1_drill-ship-shell-spokesman-curtis-smith-beaufort-seas
Is that real world enough for you? I am tired of gas costing more because Shell believed your buffoonery and wasted hundreds of millions in the Arctic, only to be chased away by reality.
Check how many test sites are listed and tell me how well that satellite radar works for penetration depths:)
I’m assuming that new satellite radar has some kick ass power output!
This is a good site to visit to see bouy data on ice thickness.
http://imb.crrel.usace.army.mil/newdata.htm
The mooring info pretty cool. Didn’t realize ice got quite that thick. 10-20m at times. Looking at the Navy ice animation, you can see patches of thicker areas forming in the Beaufort and Chukchi seas.
http://imb.crrel.usace.army.mil/iceinstr.htm
(click link under header)
Question. If higher pressure is more dominant in the central Arctic basin this year, how would that effect the ice?
That is some cool info.
“Didn’t realize ice got quite that thick. 10-20m at times”
Uh.. where’s that data? The thickest I could see is around 3m. Shame the longest they’ve been there is about 17 months.
I presume he is referring to the graph at the bottom of this page: http://imb.crrel.usace.army.mil/thickdat.htm
Those would probably be pressure ridges.
Models are real world observations? Somebody needs forced medication, and a paddling for being a big fat liar! 😆