Arctic Ice Thickness Update
While I was on vacation last week, I monitored some of the comments and saw the interesting update about the Arctic ice thickness from the National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC).
Earlier concerns about the Arctic sea ice was that much of the Arctic Ocean this year was covered by unusually thin, first-year ice, which is far more likely to completely melt out during the summer 2008 melt season, compared to the thicker multi-year ice.
According to the latest ICESat thickness estimates, it appears that the first-year sea ice in the Arctic Ocean so far this season is comparable in thickness to what it was in 2006 and 2007. Note the charts below. Why is that? The NSIDC says that sparse snow cover over the Arctic Ocean last winter resulted in less insulation from the bitterly cold air, resulting in faster, first-year ice growth. Snow was unable to accumulate last autumn since much of the Arctic Ocean was still ice-free, causing the snow to just melt into the open waters. Once the ice formed later in the fall, it accumulated more quickly than normal as there was very little barrier (snow) between the ice and the cold air just above the surface.
Now, correct me if I am wrong, let's assume that there is even less sea ice coverage at the end of this year's melt season compared to the last two years, based on their above explanation wouldn't that mean that there would be even less early autumn snow accumulation compared to last year and thus another slight increase in the first-year sea ice thickness for 2009?
Image courtesy of the NSIDC.
You can also see that the multi-year ice this year is clearly much thinner than the past two years. The NSIDC notes that this could be due to two factors. melting at the underside of the ice that was observed in the summer of 2007 and the greater than normal export of thick ice out of the Arctic Ocean.
Comments (50)
Caleb: Are you from the Baah Harbaah area. Or a Boston dude. I go up to Maine a lot. Friends in Yarmouth,Nova Scotia. Just like Ireland.
Last night on the news there was an article about the fires of California, and showing a plume of smoke trailing not out to the pacific, but up to the Arctic. They said that this effect may cause a slight cooling for a few years.YES! PATRICK!
ICE IS NICE.
KIPP
Posted by Kipp Alpert | July 27, 2008 3:10 PM
The arctic started the freezing season with the least ice since they started measuring it. If the arctic continued warming, the new ice should have been thinner than usual and cover less area than usual. Going into the melting season, the thin new ice should have quickly melted and the additional arctic warming should has eaten into even more of the multiyear ice than ever before.
Obviously that didn't happen. Let the excuses begin.
Posted by mrsund | July 27, 2008 3:44 PM
hmmm;
No urban heat islands in the arctic ocean.
So, how can there be so much loss of sea ice?
Can you say greenhouse gases; CO2 and CH4?
Evil Oil Executive will of course have their dis-information available for those gullible enough. Maybe they will try to claim there are under water volcanos to blame.
Posted by Anonymous | July 27, 2008 4:02 PM
The NSIDC says that sparse snow cover over the Arctic Ocean last winter resulted in less insulation from the bitterly cold air, resulting in faster, first-year ice growth.
Wow ..........global warming now causes "bitterly cold air" AND more ice ..... Wow ......What more can I say!
The spin doctors have a lot of work to do on this one! With sooooooooooo much money invested by the AGW camp (to prove the A in AGW), they can't afford to let this go unchallenged!
No hysteria .......No money!
Posted by PaulB | July 27, 2008 4:37 PM
Cryosphere Today has a new view of the "ice free Arctic" as predicted by the "International Polar Year Secretariat," and the "ice-free North Pole" as predicted by the "National Snow and Ice Data Center."
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/CARTESIAN/seaice.20080727.jpg
http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2008-03/01/content_7696460.htm
With an important sounding titles like that, they must be a very smart people.
Posted by Patrick Henry | July 27, 2008 4:37 PM
As of today Arctic sea ice extent is midway between 2007 and the average 1979-2000 level. You can see it monitored daily at this site:
http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/daily_images/N_timeseries.png
Posted by James | July 27, 2008 5:19 PM
Probably true, but, since ice extent is about 1 million sqkm ahead of last year (and most of the melt last year occurred between mid June and mid July it appears that the desire for an ice free pole is a pipe dream.
Posted by Bill | July 27, 2008 6:14 PM
Not sure but the deltas look very small - are they of any significance?
Posted by paulm | July 27, 2008 7:29 PM
"So why is the first-year ice thicker than anticipated? Sparse snow cover last winter may have hastened its growth: less snow on the ice means less insulation from the frigid winter air, and faster ice growth. Much of the snowfall over the Arctic Ocean occurs in early autumn, but early last autumn much of the Arctic Ocean was still ice-free and could not collect snow. Once the ice formed, it grew quickly."
What a crock.
Put another way.
The "thin ice" was supposed to melt quick this year. This should have meant that Artic sea ice would have melted fast, probably to lower levels than last year. The problem is it's not happening. So hence the ready excuse provided above.
Lets add it to the list.
1. Thin Arctic ice-AGW
Thick Arctic ice-caused by less snow, which resulted in less insulation, creating more ice, all in fact a result of less ice last year, caused, of course, by AGW.
Makes perfect sense.
2. Shrinking glacier-AGW
Growing glacier-more snow due to AGW
3. Warm winter-AGW
Cold winter-weather stupid. No one said there wouldn't be cold spells even with GW. Oh yea, and more extremes.
4. Shrinking ice sheet-AGW
Growing ice sheet-more snow due to AGW
5. Less Artic ice-AGW
More Antarctic ice-a variety of factors, none of which involve it being colder. Besides it's not significant.
6. More hurricanes-AGW
Less hurricanes-AGW
Makes sense right.
7. Droughts-AGW
Heavy rain and floods-AGW
I can't imagine why anyone would be skeptical.
Posted by iceman | July 27, 2008 8:57 PM
The implication of this story is that NSIDC didn't bother to measure the actual ice thickness before predicting it's demise in June. The Canadian Government had reported all winter that ice was recovering to near normal thickness - but that apparently wasn't significant enough to stop the publicity hounds in Boulder.
http://www.france24.com/en/20080628-north-pole-may-briefly-have-no-ice-summer-climate-north-pole
Great science.
Posted by Patrick Henry | July 28, 2008 12:46 AM
iceman/PH: basically they are trying to go for the "thickness" now because the "extent" ain't happening. Predict NH ice will increase both in thickness and extent... from now on and will probably be above anomaly for much of 09. We shall see....
Of course SH ice is extraordinarily ABOVE anomaly considering it ain't gone below once in the last 11 months! (1-2 km2 million but thats not important....)
Posted by Vincent | July 28, 2008 1:25 AM
Hi Iceman, loved the last post, brilliant!!
That sums up the almost entirely pro AGW media in the UK, the only exception I can think of is the Telegraph which seems to be more balanced in its approach to both sides of the debate.
Just reading your post again and I can almost imagine the BBC newsreaders reading this word for word!!
Posted by Greg Jenkins | July 28, 2008 7:05 AM
Greenland has been unusually cold and getting heavy snow all summer, but Earth Observatory seems to have somehow missed that story.
http://www.snow-forecast.com/maps/static/europe/last7days/snow
http://www.cdc.noaa.gov/map/images/fnl/sfctmpmer_01a_30frames.fnl.anim.html
Some locations have received over 20 inches of snow in the last week. I'm surprised that the experts under the thumb of the preeminent Dr. James Hansen, haven't prominently highlighted this massive failure in his theory.
Posted by Patrick Henry | July 28, 2008 8:02 AM
Anonymous,
More disinformation and misinformation.
Arctic sea ice extent is 1 million sqkm ahead of this time last year and doesn't appear to be melting as quickly as last year (regardless if it is 1st year or thin).
Antarctica sea ice extent is setting another record for extent this year even though there aren't any UHI there either.
Did CO2/CH4 levels decrease in the Arctic and Antarctic?
Alaska is having the coldest summer on record - http://www.adn.com/life/story/473786.html - guess the CO2 and Methane levels in Alaska must have decreased too, or maybe increased CO2/CH4 is causing lower temps? Of course what would help is if the eco-tourists would stop traveling to gawk at the melting glaciers, dumping tons of soot from their cruise ships on said glaciers and ice, increasing the melt rate.
Posted by Bill | July 28, 2008 8:26 AM
It is apparent that the AGW proponents have a poor understanding of the arctic climate and the mechanisms which affect the ice sheet. They see an anomaly and jump to false conclusions because it supports the AGW hypothesis; that isn't science. If the computer models were accurate then they would have predicted this but they didn't.
The AGW folks are not willing to admit that they don't understand these phenomena and, instead, try to reconcile contradictory real world events with AGW dogma. They should simply be honest and declare that they don't understand why the ice sheet isn't behaving the way they said it would. They lose credibility with every false prediciton.
Posted by Rick Ressler | July 28, 2008 9:44 AM
Seems to me that a lot of the alarmist camp "scientists" are kind of like fortune tellers, thay make enough predictions that eventually they will get one right and then crow "see I told you so". Sooner or later these guys need to be right on one before we can annoint them as prophets.
Posted by Michael Jennings | July 28, 2008 11:05 AM
RE: Iceman, a few more:
8) Warming ocean temps - AGW
Cooling ocean temps - Equipment failure (Bad argo system, bad!)
9) Rising sea level - AGW
Falling sea level - Equipment failure (bad satellites, bad!)
10) A hot spot in the caribbean trophosphere would prove AGW theory.
No hot spot in the caribbean trophosphere - Equipment failure (Bad radiosondes, bad!)
Posted by radar | July 28, 2008 11:28 AM
HI all - I was looking at this over the weekend & it is of interest that the ice melt rate starts to slow & is near flat by August 20th & then the freeze begins in earnest about ( surprise ) Sept 20th ... the start of total darkness at the pole.
I always considered this topic one of the most exagerated by the global warming alarmists.
Brett, did you catch the snow in Sydney yesterday? First since the 1830's if I remember correctly ... global warming appears to be manifesting itself in some strange ways!!
Reply: I checked it out closely, it looks like that was an accumulation of soft hail. Temperatures did not drop below 40. Still impressive though!
Posted by rick | July 28, 2008 12:22 PM
houston, we have a problem!!! the pontificating darkside's polar melting co2 superlaser on the hysterics-fueled deathstar appears to be malfunctioning...some sort of leak in the "doublespeak translator" is causing a chain reaction of doubt, prohibiting the consensus modulator to short circuit the melting of first year ice...worse yet, the AGW cloaking device is failing, causing the ethanol injected solar panneled wind turbines to freeze over...you gotta love how these dudes can admit they dont have a clue whats going on, then reason it all out with some hocus pocus shift of explanations....its better than reading the national enquirer....have a nice day, bros!!!
Posted by sammy k | July 28, 2008 12:25 PM
It is nice to see things not going according to plan.
It is nice to know that humans aren't God like and can predict everything.
It is nice to be able to admit hypocrisy and try and be honest (myself included).
I'm nice. But are they (AGW supporters)?
And, since they may not be nice...should I listen to them?
I don't think so.
Posted by Ken Westerman | July 28, 2008 2:35 PM
sammy k:
Very funny post! Nice job!
If you want a good look inside the AGW movement, take a look at these three videos from a Penn & Teller cable show. They are each about 10 minutes long but worth the time. Check out the petition which the activists quickly signed banning water.
Warning: They use some bad language so if you're offended by that don't click this link:
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2008/07/26/penn-teller-expose-whats-behind-environmentalist-hysteria
Posted by Rick Ressler | July 28, 2008 3:33 PM
Soft hail ... isn't that graupel? I believe it is a type of snow ... or at least it sure seems to be snow when you are skiing / boarding on it and the Swiss have a name for it. Soft hail seems to be an oxymoron , in that if it ain't ice, it ain't hail.
Again it makes for the most amazing skiing since the tiny balls are like styrofoam ball bearings under your feet & it is hero snow, almost impossible to not ski well & fast on. Also, on TV I saw a snowman made from the stuff & since there is no such thing as a hailman it has to have been snow!!
Posted by rick | July 28, 2008 3:47 PM
How inconsiderate of the 'weather' not to allow snowfall in the Arctic Ocean last winter and thus upset all the climate models and scientists!
Posted by Dave Andrews | July 28, 2008 4:07 PM
SammyK: Think of sitting on a beach in Acapulco, and look at that Margaretta you just ordered, then watch the ice melt as the sun bears down on it. That is what the Arctic will be like in five years, and all the perma frost around it. And you'll be sitting there saying"could I have a glass of ethanol this time, my car won't start. Just look at the images and you'll see the transition, and if you go there don't forget your canoe. Don't light any matches around those bogs either. Methane, is what I don't look forward to.
The Earth is warming and I don't give a damn what the IPCC predicts. There are too many sources, from too many areas of science that agree that global warming is a reality. If America doesn't get it's alternate energy act together soon then we won't be able to capitalize on that.
I don't think stalling anymore is a profitable soulution, and if China now is producing the majority of solar panels, why aren't we. Even if I thought like PatrickH that the ice age is starting, as a venture capitalist, I would go into the energy field yesterday. You guys don't sound like Republicans anymore. Look what the largest owner of natural gas in the world just did. He made an agreement with Texas to build the worlds largest wind farm. So!Wake UP!!Americans.When the price of gas went up, that was the time you knew we had to change or die,as they say in New Hampshire. Everyone say's Ya! we need gas, but not off my state. Just happened in New Jersey. Got the picture yet!
KIPP
Posted by Kipp Alpert | July 28, 2008 5:45 PM
Patrick Henry,
I recall on some of the temp anomaly maps that it seemed that Greenland had had a warm June. It's hard to tell if the Summit station has been cool, because I have never been successful in finding Summit's historical means, probably because the station is not old enough.
Posted by cbmclean | July 28, 2008 5:50 PM
Kipp Alpert:
Caleb: Are you from the Baah Harbaah area. Or a Boston dude. I go up to Maine a lot. Friends in Yarmouth,Nova Scotia. Just like Ireland.
Last night on the news there was an article about the fires of California, and showing a plume of smoke trailing not out to the pacific, but up to the Arctic. They said that this effect may cause a slight cooling for a few years.YES! PATRICK!
ICE IS NICE.
KIPP
Posted by Kipp Alpert | July 27, 2008 3:10 PM
What about all the soot from the fires landing on the ice and actually causing it to melt faster at a lower temperature?
Then what happens to the dirt when it refreezes?
Posted by Mark - Denver, CO | July 28, 2008 5:59 PM