CryoSat shows Arctic sea ice volume up 50% from last year

cancel2 2022

Canceled
Measurements from ESA’s CryoSat satellite show that the volume of Arctic sea ice has significantly increased this past autumn.

The volume of ice measured this autumn is about 50% higher compared to last year. In October 2013, CryoSat measured about 9000 cubic km of sea ice – a notable increase compared to 6000 cubic km in October 2012.

See animation:


Over the last few decades, satellites have shown a downward trend in the area of Arctic Ocean covered by ice. However, the actual volume of sea ice has proven difficult to determine because it moves around and so its thickness can change.

CryoSat was designed to measure sea-ice thickness across the entire Arctic Ocean, and has allowed scientists, for the first time, to monitor the overall change in volume accurately.

About 90% of the increase is due to growth of multiyear ice – which survives through more than one summer without melting – with only 10% growth of first year ice. Thick, multiyear ice indicates healthy Arctic sea-ice cover.

This year’s multiyear ice is now on average about 20%, or around 30 cm, thicker than last year.



ESA’s ice mission


“One of the things we’d noticed in our data was that the volume of ice year-to-year was not varying anything like as much as the ice extent – at least in 2010, 2011 and 2012,” said Rachel Tilling from the UK’s Centre for Polar Observation and Modelling, who led the study.

“We didn’t expect the greater ice extent left at the end of this summer’s melt to be reflected in the volume. But it has been, and the reason is related to the amount of multiyear ice in the Arctic.”

While this increase in ice volume is welcome news, it does not indicate a reversal in the long-term trend.

“It’s estimated that there was around 20 000 cubic kilometres of Arctic sea ice each October in the early 1980s, and so today’s minimum still ranks among the lowest of the past 30 years,” said Professor Andrew Shepherd from University College London, a co-author of the study.

The findings from a team of UK researchers at the Centre for Polar Observation and Modelling were presented last week at the American Geophysical Union’s autumn meeting in San Francisco, California.

“We are very pleased that we were able to present these results in time for the conference despite some technical problems we had with the satellite in October, which are now completely solved,” said Tommaso Parrinello, ESA’s CryoSat Mission Manager.

In October, CryoSat’s difficulties with its power system threatened the continuous supply of data, but normal operations resumed just over a week later.

With the seasonal freeze-up now underway, CryoSat will continue its routine measurement of sea ice. Over the coming months, the data will reveal just how much this summer’s increase has affected winter ice volumes.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/02/...-ice-volume-up-50-from-last-year/#more-102678
 
That's an effect of global warming. Everything is an effect of global warming. If you feel cold today... Global Warming. If you feel hot tomorrow... Global Warming. If there is a current in the ocean causing a drought... Global Warming. An Ice Age.. Global Warming.

It's the magic of Climate Change "consensus". You get to pretend you predicted anything at all and nobody will check, they'll publish your work in "peer reviewed" magazine and regardless of any evidence to the contrary people will believe what you say. No matter how thoroughly you are debunked tomorrow, people will quote from your paper for decades to come, particularly people who are fond of saying "peer reviewed"...

Even when the peer review doesn't bother checking anything at all about the method.
 
I changed my signature for you rape man, and if this board thinks Desh is bad, wait til they get a load of what I do.

Your own words expose you as a rapist.

What do you think you are going to get out of this, Darla?
 
What do you think you are going to get out of this, Darla?


Keeping someone from burying the evidence of their disgusting rape comments so that the next time they post on a rape story, or a domestic abuse story, or a custody story, everyone knows where they're coming from.

If you want to silence me, you will have to ban me. Silence is what monsters count on. Tom gets his silence by playing the moderate on one or two issues and playing pattycake with some posters so they turn a blind eye. He won't get mine.
 
Keeping someone from burying the evidence of their disgusting rape comments so that the next time they post on a rape story, or a domestic abuse story, or a custody story, everyone knows where they're coming from.

If you want to silence me, you will have to ban me. Silence is what monsters count on. Tom gets his silence by playing the moderate on one or two issues and playing pattycake with some posters so they turn a blind eye. He won't get mine.

So, you think you are going over the top and we'll have to ban you? Understandable. We'll see how it goes.
 
Keeping someone from burying the evidence of their disgusting rape comments so that the next time they post on a rape story, or a domestic abuse story, or a custody story, everyone knows where they're coming from.

If you want to silence me, you will have to ban me. Silence is what monsters count on. Tom gets his silence by playing the moderate on one or two issues and playing pattycake with some posters so they turn a blind eye. He won't get mine.

Talk about it in rape threads.
 
That's an effect of global warming. Everything is an effect of global warming. If you feel cold today... Global Warming. If you feel hot tomorrow... Global Warming. If there is a current in the ocean causing a drought... Global Warming. An Ice Age.. Global Warming.

It's the magic of Climate Change "consensus". You get to pretend you predicted anything at all and nobody will check, they'll publish your work in "peer reviewed" magazine and regardless of any evidence to the contrary people will believe what you say. No matter how thoroughly you are debunked tomorrow, people will quote from your paper for decades to come, particularly people who are fond of saying "peer reviewed"...

Even when the peer review doesn't bother checking anything at all about the method.
Damo:

Can you tell me how many billion tons of Air pollutants, inculding CO2, CO, Chlorofluorcarbons, Nitrous Dioxide, Nitrous Oxide, Sulfur Dioxide, ozone, methane (and other VOC's) and particulates were emitted last year, world wide, by both industrial and transportation point sources last year or the year before? Then can you systematically tell me the change in the atmospheric mole fraction of those compounds and calculate their radiative forcing?
 
Damo:

Can you tell me how many billion tons of Air pollutants, inculding CO2, CO, Chlorofluorcarbons, Nitrous Dioxide, Nitrous Oxide, Sulfur Dioxide, ozone, methane (and other VOC's) and particulates were emitted last year, world wide, by both industrial and transportation point sources last year or the year before? Then can you systematically tell me the change in the atmospheric mole fraction of those compounds and calculate their radiative forcing?

I can tell you that with everything that man puts into the air we don't even add up to 3% of those chemicals and that most of them come from other sources.

Another thing I can tell you is that "peer review" is an overused phrase. When good solid "peer reviewed" magazines don't even check the methods of research and people like Hwang Woo-Suk get past them, it's pretty telling. Only a child still believes that "peer reviewed" means that the methodology was checked.

I can also tell you that no matter what happens, somebody out there will say it is an effect of Global Warming.
 
Damo:

Can you tell me how many billion tons of Air pollutants, inculding CO2, CO, Chlorofluorcarbons, Nitrous Dioxide, Nitrous Oxide, Sulfur Dioxide, ozone, methane (and other VOC's) and particulates were emitted last year, world wide, by both industrial and transportation point sources last year or the year before? Then can you systematically tell me the change in the atmospheric mole fraction of those compounds and calculate their radiative forcing?

I only really know about methane compared to CO2 and I believe it is around 21 times as powerful. it is also fairly short acting around 10 years rather than 100 years, although that is questionable, with CO2.
 
Damo:

Can you tell me how many billion tons of Air pollutants, inculding CO2, CO, Chlorofluorcarbons, Nitrous Dioxide, Nitrous Oxide, Sulfur Dioxide, ozone, methane (and other VOC's) and particulates were emitted last year, world wide, by both industrial and transportation point sources last year or the year before? Then can you systematically tell me the change in the atmospheric mole fraction of those compounds and calculate their radiative forcing?

http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/ghgemissions/global.html#three

Sorry how out of date the government site is! LOL there's been a decline so they stopped including current data
http://articles.latimes.com/2013/oct/23/nation/la-na-nn-greenhouse-gas-emissions-decline-20131023

And the radiative effects of the gases is easily obtained by formulas. What is the point of calculating them in this discussion? Did you have a purpose for asking about them?
 
On the ice recovery: It was predicted that the open water would lead to rapid cooling and above average ice recovery following last years below average ice extent.

It's part of the dynamic of heat distribution
 
http://www.seas.harvard.edu/climate/seminars/pdfs/Tietsche_GRL_2011.pdf

eexaminetherecoveryofArcticseaicefrom
prescribed ice
!
free summer conditions in simulations of 21st
century climate in an atmosphere

ocean general circulation
model. We find that ice extent recovers typically within two
years. The excess oceanic heat that had built up during the
ice
!
free summer is rapidly returned to the atmosphere during
the following autumn and winter, and then leaves the Arctic
partly through increased longwave emission at the top of the
atmosphere and partly through reduced atmospheric heat
advection from lower latitudes. Oceanic heat transport does
not contribute significantly to the loss of the excess heat. Our
results suggest that anomalous loss of Arctic sea ice during
asinglesummerisreversible,astheice

albedo feedback
is alleviated by large
!
scale recovery mechanisms. Hence,
hysteretic threshold behavior (or a

tipping point

)is
unlikely to occur during the decline of Arctic summer sea
!
ice cover in the 21st century.
Citation:
Tietsche, S., D. Notz,
J. H. Jungclaus, and J. Marotzke (2011), Recovery mechanisms of
Arctic summer sea ice,
Geophys. Res. Lett.
,
38
,L02707,
doi:10.1029/2010GL045698.
 
http://www.seas.harvard.edu/climate/seminars/pdfs/Tietsche_GRL_2011.pdf

eexaminetherecoveryofArcticseaicefrom
prescribed ice
!
free summer conditions in simulations of 21st
century climate in an atmosphere

ocean general circulation
model. We find that ice extent recovers typically within two
years. The excess oceanic heat that had built up during the
ice
!
free summer is rapidly returned to the atmosphere during
the following autumn and winter, and then leaves the Arctic
partly through increased longwave emission at the top of the
atmosphere and partly through reduced atmospheric heat
advection from lower latitudes. Oceanic heat transport does
not contribute significantly to the loss of the excess heat. Our
results suggest that anomalous loss of Arctic sea ice during
asinglesummerisreversible,astheice

albedo feedback
is alleviated by large
!
scale recovery mechanisms. Hence,
hysteretic threshold behavior (or a

tipping point

)is
unlikely to occur during the decline of Arctic summer sea
!
ice cover in the 21st century.
Citation:
Tietsche, S., D. Notz,
J. H. Jungclaus, and J. Marotzke (2011), Recovery mechanisms of
Arctic summer sea ice,
Geophys. Res. Lett.
,
38
,L02707,
doi:10.1029/2010GL045698.

It is not easy to copy and paste with a PDF, the formatting often fucks up.
 
Record cold winters don't shut up the warmers!
Funny it's all lib arts pussies doing the water carrying.

Mott has scientific credentials but you are right about the rest of them, they seem to think that a degree in sociology, history or English gives them a unique insight.
 
Mott has scientific credentials but you are right about the rest of them, they seem to think that a degree in sociology, history or English gives them a unique insight.

Mott has a degree in waste management.
Not climate science
Though he plays one on the Internet.
 
"While this increase in ice volume is welcome news, it does not indicate a reversal in the long-term trend."
 
Back
Top