« SIE 2011 update 21: post mortem | Main | NASA on Arctic sea ice »


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.


Great work by Greenman as per usual, the look on Stefan Rahmstorf's face says more than a 1000 papers can say.

In my trawling the nether regions of the Net I've come across,


I'd never heard of hycomARC Arctic thickness before, never heard of another mechanism describing Arctic thickness, do you know much about it? Humorously the poster attributed it to ICESat 2, due for launch in 2015, he also attributed it to PIPS 3 (yes, logic is not a strong point) which I didn't know was operational yet, according to it's website it isn't.


Not to worry. Apparently it's PIPS3, rebadged.



It's the follow-up of PIPS 2.0, so I believe in a way it's PIPS 3, but there are some unresolved issues (in several instances this system and PIPS 2.0 overstated thickness by 1 m when compared to observations).

Forgot to press the Post button. I see you found the info, Criminogenic. :-)

Dominik Lenné

I wonder for quite a while why everybody seems to focus on sea ice extent. For the amount of energy necessary to melt the ice, volume is of course the dimension of choice (granted, that there are big insecurity margins) and for the albedo change, area is much more significant. So how come? I would really suggest a focus shift!


Dominik, we try to focus on everything here. Every metric is interesting in itself. Of course, when we get some precise volume observations for the whole Arctic, focus will shift to it automatically.

The comments to this entry are closed.