Description:
The winter ice pack in the Arctic was once dominated by multi-year*, thick ice. Today, very little old ice remains. This animation shows maps of sea ice age from 1987 through the end of October 2013. Age class 1 means “first-year ice,” which is ice that formed in the most recent winter. The oldest ice (9+) is ice that is more than 9 years old. Animation by NOAA climate.gov, based on research data provided by Mark Tschudi, CCAR, University of Colorado.
–
While arctic sea ice extent has declined some 40 percent since the Satellite record began in 1979, even more dramatic has been the loss of ice thickness, or mass. Some 75 percent of ice mass has disappeared in just a few decades.
The animation above is the latest update, showing how dramatically the thick “perrennial ice”, colored lighter in this display, has been disappearing over recent decades.
Now, the US Navy has released an updated plan for arctic operations based on the accelerated disappearance of Arctic sea ice.
WASHINGTON (Reuters) – The U.S. Navy is mapping out how to expand its presence in the Arctic beginning about 2020, given signs that the region’s once permanent ice cover is melting faster than expected, which is likely to trigger more traffic, fishing and resource mining.
“The Arctic is all about operating forward and being ready. We don’t think we’re going to have to do war-fighting up there, but we have to be ready,” said Rear Admiral Jonathan White, the Navy’s top oceanographer and navigator, and director of the Navy’s climate change task force.
“We don’t want to have a demand for the Navy to operate up there, and have to say, ‘Sorry, we can’t go,’” he said.
The Navy this week released an “aggressive” update to its 2009 Arctic plan after a detailed analysis of data from a variety of sources showed that seasonal ice is disappearing faster than had been expected even three years ago. The document said the Bering Strait was expected to see open water conditions about 160 days a year by 2020, with the deep ocean routes of the Transpolar transit route forecast to be open for up to 45 days annually by 2025.
The document includes dozens of specific tasks and deadlines for Navy offices, including calling for better research on rising sea levels and the ability to predict sea ice thickness, assessment of satellite communications and surveillance needs, and evaluation of existing ports, airfields and hangars. It also puts a big focus on cooperation with other Arctic nations and with the U.S. Coast Guard, which is grappling with the need to build a new $1 billion ice-breaking ship.
The Navy is conducting a submarine exercise in the Arctic next month, and plans to participate in a joint training exercise with the Norwegian and Russian military this summer.
White said the Navy’s new projection was aimed at answering “the billion dollar question” of how much it would cost to prepare for an increased naval presence in the Arctic, and trying to determine what investments were needed when.
“We’re trying to use this road map to really be able to answer that question,” White said, noting that early smaller-scale investments could help avert bigger bills in the future.
Chris E won’t like this! (If he understands it, that is)
why would you expect anyone to like it?
I wasn’t talking about expecting “anyone” to like it, because it is disturbing news. Is English your native tongue? Or is it just an unfortunate habit that you have of reading your own warped meanings into everything other people say?
I was talking specifically about YOU, and YOU won’t like this post because it flies in the face of the obfuscatory horsepucky you have been throwing around. Google “arctic sea ice death spiral youtube” for another of my favorite sea ice visuals (with a great sound track too).
Sancho Panza called… said he’d like his friend back.
Please let me know what part of anything I’ve ever said about Arctic sea ice doesn’t agree with NOAA’s updated video (personally, I think the 2012 video had a much bigger visual impact).
Seriously though… you are incredibly creepy.
Sticks and stones, Chrissy, sticks and stones.
What’s really creepy is your mindless repetition of arguments that were meaningless from the get-go. Sancho called YOU, not me, because you are the one tilting at windmills here. I, on the other hand, got a call from Albert Einstein, He wanted to talk to you but your line is always busy because you are having these endless deluded discussions with yourself.
Albert wants to sign you up as a poster child for his definition of insanity—-you know, repeating the same horsepucky endlessly and expecting anyone to believe it? I told him I agreed with his choice, but that he would have to spend a lot of time explaining it all to you.
OFF TOPIC
guy,
It will behoove you to knock off the personal attacks. You are losing friends fast around here.
Stick to the topics at hand, or introduce news to the threads. But attacking others on this board with ad hominem insults instead of sane counter-arguments is making you appear very much to be the ugly American bully among us. And it is just not necessary nor conducive to normal esprit d’corps
Straighten up, soldier! 🙂
Or quibble with an infantile response that you are a jarhead and not a soldier. Your call. But make it adult, whatever you write back.
I’m reminded of the old joke about academic arguments.
Q: Why are they so vitriolic?
A: Why, it’s because there is so little at stake, of course. 🙂
Let’s play nice in Peter’s sandbox, eh?
Yes, “Off Topic Ray” is at it again. How did one Crocker put it a while ago?
“Ray is off topic. All.The.Freakin’.Time”?
Since we’re sharing advice today, let me say to Ray that it would behoove him to let Peter manage Crock as Peter sees fit. Peter knows who I am and has my email address. I am sure he will let me know if I have stepped outside the bounds of proper behavior on Crock, by saying so either on the threads or via a private message. We have witnessed the recent disappearance of several individuals from Crock that were warned to “shape up” by Peter and did not heed him. Peter is not afraid to police his site.
I will listen to Peter if he speaks to me, because he IS doing good work here and I support him. I do not, on the other hand, much care to listen to the advice of an unfocused aging hippie war resister peace activist anarchist libertarian Occupy Wall Street organizer (who is occupying Wall Street from the Middle of Nowhere, Oregon). It IS interesting that Ray and I do agree on many things regarding politics, economics, and where the country is going, however—how can that be?.
Oh! Excuse me, was that perhaps a bit of an ad hominem attack and not a “sane” analysis? I would argue that it can be both. I find it interesting that Chris calls me “creepy”, “internet bully”, “unglued”, and “crazy old dude”, and that Ray talks about “ugly American bullies” and insults me with “jarhead” and “infantile”. It’s Pots and Kettles time, Ray. And you’ve been warned about that “jarhead” stuff. Would you like me to contact some old west coast Marines I know in CA and have them come up to Nowhere Oregon and explain all that to you in person? If you buy them a few beers, they will be glad to spend the time to educate you.
Actually, I suspect that Ray is really less concerned with my “attacks” on Chris than he is reacting to the many little tweaks I have given him over “occupying”, his lack of focus, and the ever-more-rabid political commentary he is inserting into our discussions of climate science. My exchanges with Chris have merely given him an opening to “vent”.
Speaking of Chris and science, Chris has appeared to be a denier troll (either deliberate or inadvertent) from his very first comment on Crock. A number of us have presented “sane arguments” to him and questioned his motives. He just does a daveburton energizer bunny imitation and cherry picks more meaningless data to try to prove some point understandable only to him. His last couple of comments have been attempts at “playing nice” and “talking science” with “Oh yeah, I can see 80%…”, “I look at stuff on SkS”, and such, but he has still not made it clear what he is trying to prove to us with all of it. I gave him some things to look at re: February vs. September sea ice and long-term trends (and “exponential”), and it went right over his head. I will be glad to treat him with more respect when he does the same to us.
“You are losing friends fast around here”, says Ray. Really? And you know this how, Ray? Others are free to speak out here on the threads, complain about me privately to Peter, or start to give me anonymous “thumbs down” votes. Have you or Chris noticed Chris’s “thumbs” non-approval rating as opposed to the ratings of those who question him?.
Is all that “adult” enough for you Ray?
Speaking of Chris and science, Chris has appeared to be a denier troll (either deliberate or inadvertent) from his very first comment on Crock. A number of us have presented “sane arguments” to him and questioned his motives. He just does a daveburton energizer bunny imitation and cherry picks more meaningless data to try to prove some point understandable only to him. His last couple of comments have been attempts at “playing nice” and “talking science” with “Oh yeah, I can see 80%…”, “I look at stuff on SkS”, and such, but he has still not made it clear what he is trying to prove to us with all of it. I gave him some things to look at re: February vs. September sea ice and long-term trends (and “exponential”), and it went right over his head. I will be glad to treat him with more respect when he does the same to us.
“You are losing friends fast around here”, says Ray. Really? And you know this how, Ray? Others are free to speak out here on the threads, complain about me privately to Peter, or start to give me anonymous “thumbs down” votes. Have you or Chris noticed Chris’s “thumbs” non-approval rating as opposed to the ratings of those who question him?.
Is all that “adult” enough for you Ray?
I posted facts.
you came unglued, and continue to come unglued. Get a hold of yourself man.
If you really want to watch him go, buy a little bit of Berkshire Hathaway and let him know. Endless entertainment.
“If you really want to watch him go, buy a little bit of Berkshire Hathaway and let him know. Endless entertainment”., says E-Pot.
Some people are easily amused, I guess, although it is hard to imagine what E-Pot finds funny in his own embarrassment over the many questions that have been asked of him about his B-H stock (and that he has so clumsily evaded). Is he laughing at himself? Has E-Pot learned the art of self-deprecation? Will he soon understand irony? Naaaaah, not possible—-he’s just confused.
You posted a pile of cherry picked and disjointed facts, and can’t seem to articulate and “paste” together what your real argument is, and you say I’M unglued?
Return Einstein’s call, because your continued sparring with me and thinking that you will EVER get the upper hand is truly insane. You are messing with the bull, and are not even perceptive enough to know that you’re feeling the horns.
PS And stop the whining and ad hominems–it’s unbecoming, MAN.
this is all because the glass didn’t spill over, isn’t it?
No, it’s because you are a (_?_) and an (_*_), and have (_! ideas.
Peter, can you list your source(s) for % lost?
Using NOAA and PIOMAS archive data I come up with different numbers for both extent and volume… (always interested in another source).
NOAA web pages have a graph that shows at least a 40% drop in Arctic extent here:
http://www.arctic.noaa.gov/detect/ice-seaice.shtml
I would assume this is also based on their own data.
As for volume the PIOMAS pages:
http://psc.apl.washington.edu/wordpress/research/projects/arctic-sea-ice-volume-anomaly/
They mention % loss in 2013 compared to the mean though and not the record 2012 year which is close to 75% I think.
2012 was however an outlier event so 2013 is probably closer to mean (or a tad higher) with regards to loss rate, although 2012 shows the thin ice is very susceptible to weather conditions that can easily make slush out of it.
How come you can’t find it yourself? Two readers here did. What are we, your personal internet researchers? Learn how to search and find a balance of reliable sources. Contribute something useful.
I was being polite and asking.
Using 1979 minimums compared to the latest minimums in 2013 for both extent and volume, the total loss comes out to 26% and 40% respectively. Peter very well have a different source that calculate totals in different manner.
And does it matter?
Do you understand “trend”?
Do you understand “exponential”?
Do you understand that what is happening RIGHT NOW was not predicted to happen until decades into the future?
Do you understand……?……Oh, never mind, it’s obvious you don’t.
Yes, I can see a trend…. its pretty apparent.
Crock really isn’t about science at all.
Unfortunately it sometimes isn’t because we have to take time out to deal with (_?_)’s like you.
The trend I was referring to was the exponential decline of arctic sea ice, although it IS paralleled by the “pretty apparent” decline in your credibility, as well as our perceptions of your intelligence.
(Do you realize there was only one three-syllable word in your latest? It was “apparent”? LOL)
Re: “Crock really isn’t about science at all.”
Crock started out as a website to expose and de-legitimate the corporate-financed climate change denial propaganda effort. It’s coverage has expanded significantly over the years.
I think Peter’s main effort is at advocacy, which i wholeheartedly endorse, to get real information into the heads of consumers who otherwise are stuffed full of bullscheisse by mendacious PR people selling their souls to the highest bidders such as the Koch Brothers and the rest of Big Oil.
I have the highest regard for Peter’s efforts to “popularize” science and make it understandable. YMMV.
Sorry, that was a little rough, and you are being polite. I dig as deep as I can, and then sometimes a lot deeper, maybe more than most. There can be as much science as you want here, and there are plenty of highly knowledgeable people here. If you want pure science, you need to go to SkS. You will find some good fact finding among some here also.
No worries Christopher.
I have been readng a lot of SkS as well, and find that there are some good posters over there.
Other people had argued that 75 to 80 percent ice volume loss was too aggressive,” said co-author Axel Schweiger, a polar scientist in the UW Applied Physics Laboratory. “What this new paper shows is that our ice loss estimates may have been too conservative, and that the recent decline is possibly more rapid.”
http://www.accuweather.com/en/weather-blogs/climatechange/satellite-confirms-uw-estimate/6229388
http://www.carbonbrief.org/blog/2012/06/75-per-cent-of-arctic-sea-ice-lost-in-30-years-we-check
This stem end briefly cause a flurry of ruffled feathers at WUWT in 2012. In 2013, it is turning into a route. Reread that Schweiger quote. This controversy has some dimensions of Coleman’s heat island in it.
Yes, I can get to 80%! Thank you for the link.
If you take 1979’s MAX volume of 16.56457, and compare it to 2012’s MIN volume of 3.36973 we get an 80% loss.
*edit* – the above numbers are for extent, not volume.
I’m sure I can top it for volume.
This is the third and last installment of my reply to Ray Duray’s “advice” message. It wouldn’t “take” in one piece. Perhaps it was too long? It is perhaps appropriate to tack it on here because it does speak to Chris’s comments as well.
“You are losing friends fast around here”, says Ray. Really? And you know this how, Ray? Others are free to speak out here on the threads, complain about me privately to Peter, or start to give me anonymous “thumbs down” votes. Have you or Chris noticed Chris’s “thumbs down” non-approval rating as opposed to the ratings of those who question him?.
Chris has appeared to be a denier troll (either deliberate or inadvertent) from his very first comment on Crock. A number of us have presented “sane arguments” to him and questioned his motives. He just does a daveburton energizer bunny imitation and cherry picks more meaningless data to try to prove some point that is understandable only to him. His last couple of comments have been attempts at “playing nice” and “talking science” with “Oh yeah, I can see 80%…”, “I look at stuff on SkS”, and such, but he has still not made it clear what he is trying to prove to us with all of it. I gave him some things to look at re: February vs. September sea ice and long-term trends (and “exponential”), and it went right over his head.
PLEASE, Chris—-tell us exactly what it is that you are trying to prove. I will be glad to treat you with more respect when you do the same with us.
We are still waiting for you to tell us what all these numbers mean. Why are you posting them?
I think you are looking for this:
http://youtu.be/9OBCXWAHo5I
I calculated MAX Volume loss for the Arctic (using 1979 MAX vs 2012 MIN) at 89%.
To recap, you can “correctly” state that in the Satellite era, Arctic sea ice has lost 80% of its total extent, and 89% of its total volume.
OF COURSE you can “correctly” state that “arctic sea ice has lost XX% of its extent” and “YY% of its volume” during a given time span such as 1979 to 2012. (The word “total” is redundant. It is simply a given that when you talk about “percents” you are talking about hundredth part divisions of a beginning whole).
You can “correctly” state “in the Satellite era, Arctic sea ice has lost 80% of its total extent, and 89% of its total volume” ONLY IF you have the correct starting and ending values for extent and volume and correctly do the simple math that leads to those answers. Let’s assume that you are correct in your math here—-valid numbers and proper math. It is a true statement of fact.
What is the significance of this? I am trying to work with you here, and have shown “good faith” by providing you with a couple of video clips that should have enhanced your understanding of the behavior of arctic sea ice since 1979. WHAT exactly is it that you are you trying to tell us?
And as you answer that, could you clarify for us your understanding of the relationship between volume and extent?
“Ordinary fools are all right; you can talk to them, and try to help them out. But pompous fools-guys who are fools and are covering it all over and impressing people as to how wonderful they are with all this hocus pocus-THAT, I CANNOT STAND! An ordinary fool isn’t a faker; an honest fool is all right. But a dishonest fool is terrible!”
-Richard Feynman
How is a quote from Feynman an answer to the two simple questions I asked you? Are you saying that you CAN’T answer my questions? Or that you WON’T?
And do you understand the irony of your using this particular quote?
With every comment you make, YOU are looking less the “ordinary fool” that we might try to help out, and more the “pompous fool” that is “covering it all over”? If you keep it up and don’t respond to my simple questions, you will prove to all that you ARE the “terrible dishonest fool”.
I will ask again, what is the significance of all the stuff you have been posting on arctic sea ice—what does it mean?—-what are we supposed to learn from it?—-what is the relationship between extent and volume? Simple questions all.
you really can’t help but follow me around, can you?
I’m on a quest for knowledge and enlightenment. I’m not here to state my opinions, or to read your opinions. When I read an article (such as this) I like to gather up the data, so I can do my own evaluations… that’s why I asked Peter for his source, so I could compare it my source.
Peter is a man I respect, but that doesn’t mean that I will listen to his opinions on a particular subject and adopt them as my own. That isn’t what I call learning, that is what I call memorization.
I would implore you again to resist the urge to continually follow me around as I don’t particularly enjoy your company.
You flatter yourself to think that I am following you around. I don’t follow cockroaches around, but I DO step on them when I come across them because they are ugly and nasty.
I visit Crock nearly every day and participate in the discussion on some threads. The way it works here is that people post things and others either agree with them or disagree with them, and post supporting or contradictory information or comments. Questions are asked and answered, everyone learns from that discussion–debate–point and counterpoint. It’s the way educated and intelligent people who think rationally operate. You have chosen once again to NOT participate in that process by refusing to answer questions about what you have posted, and instead have said nothing of substance.
You say “I’m on a quest for knowledge and enlightenment. I’m not here to state my opinions, or to read your opinions”. All you have ever offered here is your unsubstantiated opinions, along with some meaningless links and data, and you refuse to explain their significance or meaning to us.
You say “When I read an article (such as this) I like to gather up the data, so I can do my own evaluations… that’s why I asked Peter for his source, so I could compare it my source”. Peter ignored you but others (including me) gave you information. I again ask what is it that you are trying to prove by “comparing sources”? What have you learned?
This statement needs little comment from me, other than to say it is a weak excuse for your failure to engage rather than an explanation of anything. “Peter is a man I respect, but that doesn’t mean that I will listen to his opinions on a particular subject and adopt them as my own. That isn’t what I call learning, that is what I call memorization”.
You say, “I would implore you again to resist the urge to continually follow me around as I don’t particularly enjoy your company”. My stomach is too weak to allow me to “follow you around” much, but you can be assured that I will deal with you each and every time it becomes necessary when our paths cross on Crock, even though I most assuredly do not enjoy it. I don’t enjoy stepping on cockroaches either, and don’t so so if they stay out of my way.
You are a scientifically ignorant troll that is here just to get a rise out of people—-you are one of Feynman’s “terrible dishonest fools”, and THAT, I CANNOT STAND!, just as Feynman couldn’t.
PS Speaking of “following you around”, while “seeking knowledge and enlightenment”, I did come across a Climate Progress piece on which you made a number of comments—too many, in fact—11 of 67 made. I invite everyone to go check them out and see if they agree with my assessment that Chris is a disruptive troll with little interest in or knowledge of science. Ray Duray? You out there? Go take a look. Tell me I’m wrong.
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2014/02/18/3302341/arctic-sea-ice-melt-ocean-absorbs-heat/
ya, you’re definitely not following me around….
would you like my home address too?
No, I’m not following you around. I turned on the computer, and there you were, just like a cockroach in the kitchen when the lights are turned on. I said “yuk”, and, as promised, I will deal with you, just as I would deal with the cockroach. Ready? Pay attention.
If we were in a court of law with me questioning you on the witness stand, I would right now be looking to the judge and saying only one word to him.
“Unresponsive”.
The judge would sigh and shake his head (because he has been watching you do this for days), and say to you, “Mr. Ehly, I have told you many times that you MUST answer the questions put to you or I will hold you in contempt of court. Answer the questions and stop insulting this court!”
At which point you would have to answer the questions put to you. Or you could say to the judge, “I’m too stupid to know the answers”, or “I’m just an annoying troll and don’t really want to talk science”, and hope he’d let you slide and just throw you out of his courtroom. I for one am hoping “Judge Peter”will do exactly that before long.
You ask, “would you like my home address too?” A tempting offer, but I try not to drive down the unpaved roads into “Deliverance Country” where the ignorant and inbred live. It’s a pain to have to “gun up” before doing so.
Still waiting for answers. Answer them or go away.
How many times a day, on average, do you think of me?
How many times a day, on average, do you post something evasive and inane on Crock? That’s your answer, although dealing with you doesn’t really require much “thinking”.
How many times is it now that you have made yourself look foolish by NOT answering my very simple questions and explaining why you keep posting meaningless math?
Go away!
I was reconciling a discrepancy in total loss. I thought my questions were pretty simple to understand, and my follow-up posts fairly short. If you can’t follow them, I dunno what to tell ya.
BTW, I didn’t accept your Facebook friend request. I hope you can understand.
You were “reconciling a discrepancy in total loss”? That’s just more BS to cover up the fact that you don’t understand the science and were doing nothing but wasting our time, as you’re doing here again. Don’t you have a Job to go to? I’m retired and can afford to spend time here, but I’m sure your mom would like some help with the bills since you’re living in her basement.
Your “follow-up posts” were not only “fairly short”, they were meaningless. You don’t know “what to tell ya”? Tell us about the relationship between sea ice extent and sea ice volume. Explain why a “discrepancy” in “total loss” has any meaning at all except to someone who is a denialist troll.
While we’re asking questions, why do you keep changing your photo? That’s three now in two days on one thread. I can understand why you ditched the one in the green shirt, since that’s the one you used on all those idiotic comments on Climate Progress that you’re now hiding from, but why the two with the unknown female(s)?
FLASH!!! Speaking of Chiris’s comments on Climate Progress? The ones I suggested everyone go look at? They’re GONE! I guess the folks over there decided that they were garbage and just getting in the way, so they purged them, as well as any comment in response to them (Chris lives on in only one brief mention by Andy Lee R). Go read the article anyway—-it’s a good one, and the comment stream is much better now that the cockroaches have been stepped on
PS The facebook bit is funny, but I don’t do facebook, and everyone here knows you’re the last person I’d want to “friend” if I did.
Seriously though…
Do you find it at all odd that you’re obsessing over a dude on the internet?
I’ve said all that needs to be said more than enough times, and I’m done with you.
It’s laughable that you would speak of anyone else being obsessed, when it’s obvious that you’rr obsessed with being a troll. Enjoy being ignored on Crock, just as you are on Climate Progress. Time for you to move on and pollute a new blog. Farewell!
If I’m ignore by you, I might very well enjoy myself.
I think the point here is that what we used to just call the North Pole is not going to have any ice during the summer. To say this thirty years ago would have been unthinkable. To predict this thirty years ago would be called radical, alarmist.
Thirty years ago, the occurrence of an ice-free North Pole would have been accepted world-wide as incontrovertible proof that global warming was real. Today – it’s just another factoid ripe for FUD.
Remember – this new ice-free Arctic is happening when the Earth is actually in an extended ice age. When the sun’s output has not been lower in sixty years. This ice-free Arctic should scare the living **** out of any reasonable observer.
Right now it is pretty fracking cold for early March in Vermont. I’m hoping we will have a reasonable summer growing season. But I have my doubts…….
Here’s two more to look at, one by Andy Lee. Shrinking blocks of ice, death spirals by months, death spirals by years—-all point in the same direction.
Still waiting to hear what it is you’re trying to prove with the numbers you have put out there.
http://youtu.be/bL7D5eRlDxk
http://youtu.be/qUO23Y179pU
New data confirms Arctic ice trends: Sea ice being lost at a rate of five days per decade:
http://phys.org/news/2014-03-arctic-ice-trends-sea-lost.html