Look For An Increase In Three And Four Year Old Ice

The dirty little secret about 2007 was that most of the loss of older ice occurred during the winter, not the summer. Persistent winds blew a lot of old ice out into the North Atlantic.

Since 2008, the old ice has been increasing. Last year there was an increase in two and three year old ice, so we should expect to see an increase in three and four year old ice this year.


About stevengoddard

Just having fun
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

49 Responses to Look For An Increase In Three And Four Year Old Ice

  1. the clue bird says that if the young ice gets demolished as it has this year that the percent of old ice must go up NECESSARILY.

    the chart shows percent.

    What you want to look at is the volume at the end.

  2. Me says:

    Possibly 😆 😉

  3. If that prediction pans out that would mean Arctic ice is on the increase. But I know the simple logic behind that will go flying over the heads of some people.

  4. Tony The Pony says:

    T – 9 and counting …

  5. Travis says:

    Might be useful to go by the sea ice age chart from this year (March).

    With the melt out in the Beaufort and Chukchi seas, it’s likely all the 3,4,and 5 year ice that was there this April is gone. I’m also willing to go out on a limb and say that the just about all the ice that was in the Fram Strait and south is gone, too. Much of the two-year ice in the area of the East Siberian Sea is probably gone (it probably makes up most of what survived that storm a couple weeks ago). That pretty much leaves the multi-year ice in the Central Arctic Basin, and I don’t think that’s going anywhere in the next couple weeks. The fifth-year ice has probably worked its way south through the Canadian Arctic and melted, but that will be replaced by the fourth-year ice this winter.

    • Me says:

      Didn’t some one say earlier that a 5th August 2012 chart that was posted on the 6th of August was old, err something earlier tonight errr something…….

  6. kirkmyers says:

    The ice at the poles has been growing and melting for millions of years without any help from atmospheric CO2. In fact, during the Late Ordovician Period, the planet was in the midst of an Ice Age while, at the same time, CO2 concentrations, at 4400 ppm, were nearly 12 times higher than today. According to the greenhouse theory, Earth should have been exceedingly hot.

    All this talk about human-induced CO2 melting the ice caps is silly nonsense — just another in a litany of alarmist theories that remains unproven. The fact is, the AGW alarmists are unable to demonstrate that the recent decline in arctic sea ice is due to anything other than natural variability.

    • Me says:

      I agree. but no doubt some alarmist will chime in sooner or later.

    • Nick says:

      Lord knows what ‘alarmists’ think. So,which natural variables have coincided to produce the thirty year downward trend in summer ice minimum extent? What do you think of Day et al 2012: ‘Sources of Multi-decadal variability in Arctic sea-ice extent’?

      • Nick

        you think it’s man. You won’t understand anything else because you don’t want to.

      • kirkmyers says:

        Take your pick: increased solar activity, positive AMO, shifting ocean currents, arctic storms (such as the one that occurred in early August) are among variousl natural factors that are responsible changes in ice extent. There’s no evidence to support the theory of CO2-induced melting of polar ice.

        By the way, there has been no statistically significant global warming in over 15 years (see HadCRUT3 raw data — before “adjustments”). Even Phil Jones of the CRU admitted as much in an interview with the BBC.

        As longtime meterologist Joe D’Aleo observes:

        “Only 2.75 percent of atmospheric CO2 is anthropogenic in origin. Despite the increase in emissions, the rate of change of atmospheric carbon dioxide at Mauna Loa remains the same as the long term average (plus 0.45 percent per year). We [CO2 emmissions] are responsible for just 0.001 percent of the atmosphere. If the atmosphere was a 100-story building, our anthropogenic CO2 contribution today would be equivalent to the linoleum on the first floor.”

        Yet we’re supposed to believe that this minuscule contribution of CO2 by mankind is warming the planet, changing our weather, and threatening life as we know it? What utter hubris!

      • It’s actually nearly 18 years now that there hasn’t been statistically significant warming,

      • What’s funny about comments like Nick made demanding exact detail as to what could possibly cause warming and ice loss is something they themselves will never do. They can never explain how it is man is warming the climate. They feel they don’t need to. They think it is obvious. they think anyone who doesn’t think it is obvious is a “denier”. There’s the IPCC. There’s Al Gore’s movie. There’s some alarmist scientists that get on tv, usually activist scientist, who cry out like Chicken Little—and that’s enough for them. It’s pretty obvious they don’t really understand what they are talking about. They can never explain it. They don’t know what they believe in detail. Yet they demand that anyone that doesn’t think like them gives them detail on what they believe—and even when those details are given, which has been done over and over, they won’t listen or understand. They will just reiterate “there is a consensus”. They are clones, unfortunately for them, they are clones.

      • Nick says:

        So,none of you have read Day et al 2012,which discusses and attempts to quantify relative contributions of natural variables such as the ones you mention.
        Kirk,can you cite one research group who thinks solar activity has increased in the satellite era? D’Aleo’s assessment of ACO2 is simply amateurism, BTW.

        Why has the net effect of natural variability over thirty years of variable Arctic seasonal weather conspired to lower ice volume,reduce percentage of older ice and considerably reduce summer ice extent? What are the odds of exporting and melting factors lining up to that effect?

      • The answer wasn’t enough, hey nick? It’s man, even though you don’t understand why, it’s just man. Got it.

  7. sod says:

    Great news! we still have 100% of the sea ice!!!!

    sorry, but this graph does not say, what you claim it does. There has been no “increase in increase in two and three year old ice”, only the percentage of these (of the shrinking total) has increased.

    • Me says:

      Compensating are yas or projecting yet again….. 😆

    • You sure of what you are saying, whatever it was?

    • since volume is based on models and not actual measurement you can’t be as certain as you wished to make it appear in your comment sod.

      And try to control your alarmist exaggerating: “Great news! we still have 100% of the sea ice!!!!”

      You take outlandish shots that resemble nothing of what was said in the post. I’m beginning to think your ilk is evil.

      • Nick says:

        This is some of “what was said in the post”,Amino: “Since 2008,the old ice has been increasing.”

        Yet the graphic below that statement shows that September extent of 5+ year old ice has declined from around 10% of total ice in 2008 to less than 5% in 2011…and 4+ y.o ice from around 16% to around 8% over the same period.

      • sod says:

        this claim is also false.

        even the graph provided by you shows, that about 40% of the sea ice in september 2007 was 1 year old.

      • Me says:

        Well SOD err whatever, blame the NSIDC then! BWAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHA

      • sod, you are being a real sod. That is 1-2 year old ice, not first year ice. The problem is your ignorance and big mouth.

    • There has been a large increase in the amount of thick ice over the last few years.

      • Terra Incognita says:

        “There has been a large increase in the amount of thick ice over the last few years”


      • I knew people like Nick and Terra would have this post go straight over their heads.

      • sod says:

        This claim is false and you will not be able to back it up with any numbers.

        your graph shows something completely different:

        some age groups of older sea ice have made up a larger percentage of the total sea ice in recent years.

        • Learn some math you silly person. 2008 had a very low minimum extent and percentage. Huge amounts of MYI blew out of the Arctic during the winter of 2007-2008

      • Me says:

        But I’m sure you pal err I mean peer folks can backit up, errr something like that. 😆

      • Nick says:

        As the discussion for your graphic of October 2011 says:

        “Over the past few summers,more first year ice has survived than in 2007,replenishing the young multi-year ice categories [2 to 3 y.o. ice]. This multi-year ice appears to have played a key role in preserving the tongue of ice extending from near the North Pole toward the East Siberian Sea. However,the oldest,thickest ice [five or more years old] has continued to decline,particularly in the Beaufort and Chuckchi Seas. Continued loss of the oldest,thickest ice has prevented any significant recovery of the summer minimum extent. In essence,what was once a refuge for older ice has become a graveyard…”

        2 to 4 year old ice has increased as a percentage of total area over the past few summers…while that total area has declined. Significant older ice has been isolated in the Beaufort/Chuckchi where it has disintegrated

  8. sod says:

    so who will tell me, by how much has the amount of 3 year old ice increased?

  9. Terra Incognita says:

    I’ve said this before, I’ll say it again. If the ice is rapidly shrinking in extent and, as Steven says, thickening at the same time, then what is the logical conclusion? According to this logic the future will bring us

    2015: 1 Million square kilometer extent with 10 year ice?
    2020: 200,000 square kilometer extent with 15 year ice?
    2025: 1 square kilometer extent with the ice reaching down to the ocean floor?

  10. David says:

    Terrra Incognita your postion is, “I do not know what the natural factors are, but I do know that mankind, he done it.”

    Can you present any evidence to support your AGW supposition? Here is all of the info I’ve collected thus far that support the influence of wind and Atmospheric Oscillations:
    In this October, 1 2007 NASA article;
    Son V. Nghiem of NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory, said that “the rapid decline in winter perennial ice the past two years was caused by unusual winds. “Unusual atmospheric conditions set up wind patterns that compressed the sea ice, loaded it into the Transpolar Drift Stream and then sped its flow out of the Arctic,” he said. When that sea ice reached lower latitudes, it rapidly melted in the warmer waters.
    “The winds causing this trend in ice reduction were set up by an unusual pattern of atmospheric pressure that began at the beginning of this century,” Nghiem said.”
    This 2010 Guardian article states that;
    “Much of the record breaking loss of ice in the Arctic ocean in recent years is down to the region’s swirling winds and is not a direct result of global warming, a new study reveals.”:
    This 2011 paper submitted to The Cryosphere by L. H. Smedsrud, et al. “used “geostrophic winds derived from reanalysis data to calculate the Fram Strait ice area export back to 1957, finding that the sea ice area export recently is about 25% larger than during the 1960’s.”

    Click to access tcd-5-1311-2011-print.pdf

    This 2007 paper “Rapid reduction of Arctic perennial sea ice” by Nghiem, Rigor, Perovich, Clemente-Colo, Weatherly and Neumann states that;
    “Perennial-ice extent loss in March within the DM domain was noticeable after the 1960s, and the loss became more rapid in the 2000s when QSCAT observations were available to verify the model results. QSCAT data also revealed mechanisms contributing to the perennial-ice extent loss: ice compression toward the western Arctic, ice loading into the Transpolar Drift (TD) together with an acceleration of the TD carrying excessive ice out of Fram Strait, and ice export to Baffin Bay.”

    Click to access NghiemEtal2007_MYreduction.pdf

    This 2004 paper “Variations in the Age of Arctic Sea-ice and Summer Sea-ice Extent” by Ignatius G. Rigor & John M. Wallace, states that;
    “The winter AO-index explains as much as 64% of the variance in summer sea-ice extent in the Eurasian sector, but the winter and summer AO-indices combined explain less than 20% of the variance along the Alaskan coast, where the age of sea-ice explains over 50% of the year-to year variability. If this interpretation is correct, low summer sea-ice extents are likely to persist for at least a few years. However, it is conceivable that, given an extended interval of low-index AO conditions, ice thickness and summertime sea-ice extent could gradually return to the levels characteristic of the 1980′s.”
    2004 Science Daily article,” Extreme changes in the Arctic Oscillation in the early 1990s — and not warmer temperatures of recent years — are largely responsible for declines in how much sea ice covers the Arctic Ocean, with near record lows having been observed during the last three years, University of Washington researchers say.”
    “It may have happened more than a decade ago, but the sea ice appears to still “remember” those Arctic Oscillation conditions, according to Ignatius Rigor, a mathematician with the UW’s Applied Physics Laboratory.”
    This 2010 paper, “Influence of winter and summer surface wind anomalies on summer Arctic sea ice extent” by Masayo Ogi, Koji Yamazaki and John M. Wallace, published in Geophysical Research Letters states that;
    “We have shown results indicating that wind‐induced, year‐to‐year differences in the rate of flow of ice toward and through Fram Strait play an important role in modulating September SIE on a year‐to‐year basis and that a trend toward an increased wind‐induced rate of flow has contributed to the decline in the areal coverage of Arctic summer sea ice.”

    Click to access 2009GL042356.pdf

    This 2001 paper, Fram Strait Ice Fluxes and Atmospheric Circulation: 1950–2000
    by Torgny Vinje found that:
    “Observations reveal a strong correlation between the ice fluxes through the Fram Strait and the cross-strait air pressure difference.”
    “Although the 1950s and 1990s stand out as the two decades with maximum flux variability, significant variations seem more to be the rule than the exception over the whole period considered.”
    “A noticeable fall in the winter air pressure of 7 hPa is observed in the Fram Strait and the Barents Sea during the last five decades.”
    “The corresponding decadal maximum change in the Arctic Ocean ice thickness is of the order of 0.8 m. These temporal wind-induced variations may help explain observed changes in portions of the Arctic Ocean ice cover over the last decades. Due to an increasing rate in the ice drainage through the Fram Strait during the 1990s, this decade is characterized by a state of decreasing ice thickness in the Arctic Ocean.”
    “The decreases in recent decades, which are also partially due to circulation-driven ice export through the Fram Strait between Greenland and Svalbard (Vinje, 2001), have coincided with a positive trend in the NAO, with unusually high index values in the late 1980s and 1990s. During this period, the variability of ice motion and ice export through the Fram Strait was correlated strongly with the NAO; r∼ 0.86 for the ice area flux (Kwok and Rothrock, 1999) and r∼ 0.7 for the ice volume flux (Hilmer and Jung, 2000), although the relationship was insignificant (r∼ 0.1) before the mid 1970s (Hilmer and Jung, 2000). Deser et al. (2000) analysed a 40-yr gridded data set (1958–97) to determine the association between arctic sea ice, SAT and SLP, concluding that the multidecadal trends in the NAO/AO in the past three decades have been ‘imprinted upon the distribution of Arctic sea ice’, with the first principal component of sea-ice concentration significantly correlated (r∼−0.63) with the NAO index, recently cause-and-effect modelled by Hu et al. (2002). None the less, our calculations and those of Deser et al. (2000) indicate that, even in recent decades, only about one third of the variability in arctic total ice extent and MY ice area (Johannessen et al., 1999) is explained by the NAO index ”
    ” The decadal-scale mode associated with the Arctic Oscillation (AO) and a low-frequency oscillation (LFO) with an approximate time scale of 60-80 years, dominate. Both modes were positive in the 1990s, signifying a prolonged phase of anomalously low atmospheric sea level pressure and above normal surface air temperature in the central Arctic. Consistent with an enhanced cyclonic component, the arctic anticyclone was weakened and vorticity of winds became positive. The rapid reduction of arctic ice thickness in the 1990s may be one manifestation of the intense atmosphere and ice cyclonic circulation regime due to the synchronous actions of the AO and LFO. Our results suggest that the decadal AO and multidecadal LFO drive large amplitude natural variability in the Arctic making detection of possible long-term trends induced by greenhouse gas warming most difficult.”
    Igor V. Polyakov and Mark A. Johnson, 2000

    Click to access Decadal.pdf

    “Hilmer and Jung (2000) note a secular change in the relationship between the Fram Strait ice flux and the NAO; the high correlation noted by Kwok and Rothrock (1999) from 1978 to 1996 was not found in data prior to 1978. We expect our overall results to be more robust given the strong relationship between the AO and SIM over the Arctic, as compared to the weaker relationship between the north–south flow through Fram Strait and the AO. Even if one ignored the effect of the AO on the flux of ice through Fram Strait, the divergence of ice in the eastern Arctic would be still be ;50% greater under high-index conditions than under low-index conditions, and the heat flux would be ;25% greater.”
    ” We have shown that sea ice provides memory for the Arctic climate system so that changes in SIM driven by the AO during winter can be felt during the ensuing seasons; that is, the AO drives dynamic thinning of the sea ice in the eastern Arctic during winter, allowing more heat to be released from the ocean through the thinner ice during spring, and resulting in lower SIC during summer and the liberation of more heat by the freezing of the ice in autumn. The correlations between the wintertime AO and SIC and SAT during the subsequent seasons offers the hope of some predictability, which may be useful for navigation along the Northern Sea route.”

    Click to access Response-of-Sea-Ice-to-the-Arctic-Oscillation-2002-J-Climate.pdf

    I look forward to seeing the body of evidence that you’ve based your opinion on…

    gator69 says:
    August 14, 2012 at 11:02 am

    Click to access mckay_etal_CJES_08.pdf

    This paper shows that there is more ice now than the average of the past 9000 years.
    It is widely known that the current ice conditions are nothing special…
    “Arctic Ice Loss Has Been Much Worse Historically”
    “The meltdown underway in the Arctic is remarkable, but an international team of beachcombers has uncovered evidence it’s been much worse before.”
    “Based on the paleoclimate record from ice and ocean cores, the last warm period in the Arctic peaked about 8,000 years ago, during the so-called Holocene Thermal Maximum. Some studies suggest that as recent as 5,500 years ago, the Arctic had less summertime sea ice than today. However, it is not clear that the Arctic was completely free of summertime sea ice during this time.”

    • Those like Terra usually don’t supply data or studies.

    • Jay Zwally says:

      Paper does not say “more ice now than the average of the past 9000 years.” It says: “The results of this study clearly show that sea-ice cover in the western Arctic Ocean has varied throughout the Holocene. More importantly, there have been times when sea-ice cover was less extensive than at the end of the 20th century.” Presume that is at 2000, not 2007 or 2012. Anyhow, less ice during the warm period 8K yrs ago was natural variability, and the accelerated decline now is due to man-induced greenhouse gases.
      Jay Z

  11. Jay Zwally says:

    Re your: “… so we should expect to see and increase in three and four year ice this year.” Maybe in percent, but important thing is their area, which is probably going down.
    Jay Z

  12. Karl says:

    so could somebody please post a graph with (estimated) trends of ice age expressed in area or volume, not percentage? That would make this discussion less boring.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s