The Arctic’s Stunning Single Year Recovery! BBC Reports There’s 50% More Arctic Sea Ice VOLUME This Year!

If the oceans have eaten the heat, then it certainly isn’t to be found in the Arctic Ocean – that’s for sure!

The Beeb has surprised today in reporting that Arctic sea ice VOLUME grew a stunning 50%, from 6000 cubic kilometers to approx. 9000 cubic kilometers, from 2012 to 2013, this according to measurements made by the Cryosat probe of the European Space Agency.

Yet another argument of the warmists is melting away.

Data from Europe’s Cryosat spacecraft suggests there were almost 9,000 cu km of ice at the end of this year’s melt season. This is close to 50% more than in the corresponding period in 2012.

Are sea ice models next in line to be embarrassed?

Whenever sea ice area did not cooperate, the warmists always insisted that we needed to look at volume – that, they told us, was the real barometer. But now we are seeing that Arctic sea ice volume is also no longer cooperating. According to Rachel Tilling from the UK’s Nerc Centre for Polar Observation and Modelling (CPOM).

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 for the years 2010, 2011 and 2012.

This is why we’re really quite surprised by what we’ve seen in 2013. We didn’t expect the greater ice extent left at the end of the summer melt to be reflected in the volume. But it has been. And the reason is related to the amount of multi-year ice in the Arctic.”

Of course scientists and the BBC are scrambling to play down the new development, saying that the Arctic ice volume is still very low.

They blame “wind patterns” for not spreading the ice out more, and thus preventing it from melting more during the 2013 summer. Yet, we recall that in 2007 and 2012 the same scientists immediately blamed global warming for the rapid melt, and not winds, which had been clearly at play. Little wonder the public is losing confidence.

More old ice

The Beeb adds: “Part of this stronger performance can be put down to the greater retention of older ice.”

Interestingly scientists say thickness/volume is the best metric with which to judge the health of the ice pack. Perhaps then we should see more plots of this metric in the future instead of the at-times meaningless sea ice area extents.

 

12 responses to “The Arctic’s Stunning Single Year Recovery! BBC Reports There’s 5012 More Arctic Sea Ice VOLUME This Year!”

  1. Bruce of Newcastle

    A graph of NH sea ice extent versus the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation index shows they have tracked each other for the last 30 years. If you see the IPCC AR2 sea ice data from before 1979 it also tracks the AMO up to the peak in 1979.

    The catch is that the AMO is cyclical on about a 62 year period, and has just swung over into the 30 year-long down phase.

    It suggests the recovery this year is no coincidence. And the IPCC models are wrong as they don’t include the ~60 year temperature cycle or the full solar effect which has also commenced a weak phase.

    Don’t invest in any Arctic Sea oil exploration companies, you’ll lose your money.

  2. red jeff
    1. Mindert Eiting

      I like this one: ‘Kern also said Beale was driven “to manipulate those around him through the fabrication of grandiose narratives … that are fueled by his insecurities.”’ This is the language of psychotherapists. Golden times for these health workers.

    2. DirkH

      Meanwhile the CIA guys who disappear from work for months at a time tell their superiors that they’re undercover EPA officials and need to save Polar Bears.

      “The name is Beale. John Beale.”

  3. DirkH

    O/T One of the contraptions with which Germans atone for their evil affluent lifestyle is the wood pellet heater, a mechanically surprisingly overengineered thing for such a simple purpose. Now the subsidized demand leads to shortage of wood scraps and the production of pellets from prime quality wood, and rising pellet prices. Market distortions abound. German, videos:
    http://www.pi-news.net/2013/12/rohrkrepierer-pelletheizung/

  4. G. Watkins

    “the oceans have eaten the heat” meme seems to me to completely destroy the warmists argument that CO2 controls temperature via spurious infra-red back radiation and further amplification by water vapour. Infra-red only penetrates a few mms. of water and even this ‘heat’ is lost due to increased evaporation. Only high energy ‘visible light etc’ radiation penetrates deep enough to warm the oceans which can only come from the sun – ignoring geothermal.
    It follows, therefore, that if the heat is in the unmeasured deep oceans it can only be there from changes in insolation which the warmists deny, which seems to me to be a contradictory position.
    Or am I just dumb ? Answer not required :-).

    1. Mindert Eiting

      Could the missing heat be in the universe at a distance of 1-17 light years?

      1. Ed Caryl

        You are both right. The ocean ate the heat and spit it into deep space. LOL

  5. Rick C

    How much heat is released from the formation of 3000 cu km of sea ice. We must now correct the SST and atmospheric temps over the year downward.

    1. DirkH

      It is not really a heat release; it is just that the formation of ice stalls the further drop in temperatures. In other words, temperatures are not a linear mapping of energy in the system; the relationship has a plateau around 0 deg C because formation / melting of ice stabilizes at that point. This also means that the law of large numbers does not apply to temperatures . as the distribution is not symmetric; and that a global temperature average is a meaningless / unphysical metric. A global energy content average would be a meaningful metric. The climate scientists do not know enough about math and physics to have noticed.

      1. Ed Caryl

        Excellent observations!!

      2. Rick C

        Warmists have attributed something like .2 W/m2 of the estimated TOI imbalance to melting ice therefore we now would expect the reverse to be true and the calculated radiation imbalance would need to be corrected downward.
        This should also lower climate sensitivity calculations.