Twisted viewpoint, graph above shows more ice than last year, not indicative of decline and thinning.

---

Twisted viewpoint, graph above shows more ice than last year, not indicative of decline and thinning.

Ignorance is no substitute for knowledge Four.

That graph shows a very specific subset of the Arctic region - I assume from your comment that you haven't grasped that point.

I suggest you do try to work out for yourself why there should be such a rapdid increase in ice.  This is an area which used to be much more substantially ice covered so there would not have been that rapid increase.

Think about what is happening up there for these results to be occurring.

Or maybe another dismissive ignorant one-liner would be easier.

---

The other point being , G.T.W., the Basin is now near full.

is the other sea ice areas that make up the bulk of the maximum ice area so maybe folk should be looking/comparing how they are doing compared with previous years;

http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/recent365.anom.region.1.html

click your way through the list and note:

How many are showing a neg. anom. compared to the 79-08' mean

How many areas are currently 'growing' so slowly they are increasing their neg anom.

How many areas still have little or no ice.

---

Twisted viewpoint, graph above shows more ice than last year, not indicative of decline and thinning.

Ignorance is no substitute for knowledge Four.

That graph shows a very specific subset of the Arctic region - I assume from your comment that you haven't grasped that point.

I suggest you do try to work out for yourself why there should be such a rapdid increase in ice.  This is an area which used to be much more substantially ice covered so there would not have been that rapid increase.

Think about what is happening up there for these results to be occurring.

Or maybe another dismissive ignorant one-liner would be easier.

 

Why do a dismissive one liner when you can do it in 10 eh GTW.

---

The argument you are using is like saying recent ice low points are only happening because it was too high before.
Every last thing has to somehow be twisted so it can be claimed as further evidence of catastrophic change.

---

 

Why do a dismissive one liner when you can do it in 10 eh GTW.

Well, I prefer to give support to my views.  That takes more than an ill-considered one-liner, doesn't it?

---

The argument you are using is like saying recent ice low points are only happening because it was too high before.
Every last thing has to somehow be twisted so it can be claimed as further evidence of catastrophic change.

Sorry, I don't follow that logic at all.

The argument I am using is that the area shown by the graph used to have much greater ice cover before, which was the norm - nothing to do with it being 'too high' before.

I am twisting nothing, Four, merely reporting the facts and offering an explanation for the trends.  I would be interested in an alternative explanation, please, if you have one to offer?

---

There is a new NASA study about the loss of ice through melt and lost through transport out of the basin.

http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/seaice-melt.html

 

It looks like melting is a major factor, which is contributing to the thinning and loss of multi-year ice.

 

---

It looks like melting is a major factor, which is contributing to the thinning and loss of multi-year ice.

 

How thin is the ice this year compared with the last few years?

---

Yup Dr M. , sure is good it gets cold when the sun goes down......

I didn't say it was unusual just nice to look at.  It's probably later than usual (I haven't checked) I just thought the link belonged in here rather than elsewhere.

Just wondering if you did ever check?

It looks like melting is a major factor, which is contributing to the thinning and loss of multi-year ice.

 

How thin is the ice this year compared with the last few years?

Hi Michael

This is the latest (updated as of Sunday 7th)

http://psc.apl.washington.edu/ArcticSeaiceVolume/images/BPIOMASIceVolumeAnomalyCurrent.png

 

Recovering quite well in recent weeks but still at an all-time low.  Assuming the trend continues it looks like it will continue to recover but I don't know if it will pass the trend line.

 

---

Twisted viewpoint, graph above shows more ice than last year, not indicative of decline and thinning.

Ignorance is no substitute for knowledge Four.

That graph shows a very specific subset of the Arctic region - I assume from your comment that you haven't grasped that point.

I suggest you do try to work out for yourself why there should be such a rapdid increase in ice.  This is an area which used to be much more substantially ice covered so there would not have been that rapid increase.

It is not an area which used to be "much more substantially ice covered": this sub-area is always completely covered in the winter.

It looks like melting is a major factor, which is contributing to the thinning and loss of multi-year ice.

 

How thin is the ice this year compared with the last few years?

Hi Michael

This is the latest (updated as of Sunday 7th)

http://psc.apl.washington.edu/ArcticSeaiceVolume/images/BPIOMASIceVolumeAnomalyCurrent.png

 

Recovering quite well in recent weeks but still at an all-time low.  Assuming the trend continues it looks like it will continue to recover but I don't know if it will pass the trend line.

 

That says more about extent/area than volume though IMO and is at odds with other satellite data which show the lower extent but greater thickness.

---

It looks like melting is a major factor, which is contributing to the thinning and loss of multi-year ice.

 

How thin is the ice this year compared with the last few years?

Hi Michael

This is the latest (updated as of Sunday 7th)

http://psc.apl.washington.edu/ArcticSeaiceVolume/images/BPIOMASIceVolumeAnomalyCurrent.png

 

Recovering quite well in recent weeks but still at an all-time low.  Assuming the trend continues it looks like it will continue to recover but I don't know if it will pass the trend line.

 

That says more about extent/area than volume though IMO and is at odds with other satellite data which show the lower extent but greater thickness.

Yes, but it's the nearest data I can find.   In theory you could overlay the volume and area data and work out the average thickness change.  Assuming you have the time to find the underlying data and do the sums.

The volume recovery looks like about 25% since the trough.  Based on the Cryosphere chart the ice area seems to have doubled since the trough.   What does that say?  I don't know....

 

 

---

G.T.W., I think you have a job figuring the loss of volume through southern Beaufort/Greenland and Canadian Archipelago. The Prof Barber witnessing of a multi km , multi meter floe collapse into 100m slabs (which would then turn and find it's new equilibrium by laying flat and covering more 'extent' than stood upright in a floe) shows the kind of volume we lost (in situ) both before ,and after,07'. We know that the 02'-08' ICESAT/Cryosat2 gave a 3m average for the pack but what of the piled up /ridged Paleocrystic ice? how much of that was in the 'mix'?

I think the loss of that 'Rind' of thick ice ,along the northern shores of Alaska/Canada/Greenland, will have put quite a dent in the 'volume figure' that you may be figuring?

 

---

Ice thickness today.....

2009.....

2008....

What conclusion can we draw? The Arctic Ice is getting thicker from its low point.....

All the talk of thinning Ice is just a waste of Co2...

Ice thickness today.....

What conclusion can we draw? The Arctic Ice is getting thicker from its low point.....

All the talk of thinning Ice is just a waste of Co2...

 

Cherry picking again.

Shall we try to focus on the long-term trends?   Ice volume shows a clear downward trend.

 

 

---

I had a look a the site the bob gets his data from - I can see why he only went as far back as 2008, it suits his ill informed argument that the ice isn't thinning.....here's 2007 for example.

---

To be fair one thing that it does show is that th thickness decrease trend can be reversed and it's not an unending downward spiral despite the lack of multiyear ice. Before anyone asks (or accuses) I'm not saying that the thicker ice this year necessailry has any long term significance.

---

Also, we are only looking at one moment in time....I think we need to have at least 30 years of data before we can conclusively say one way or the other

---