Another month has passed and so here is the updated Arctic sea ice volume graph as calculated by the Pan-Arctic Ice Ocean Modeling and Assimilation System (PIOMAS) at the Polar Science Center:
According to the model sea ice volume hasn't been as low on May 31st as this year. It looks like we're seeing the same crash as in 2010 and 2011, but right now 2012 is 562 km3 lower than 2011, and 1262 km3 lower than 2010.
Here is Wipneus' version for which he calculated the "expected" 2012 values (dotted lines), based on the same date values of 1979-2011 and an exponential trend. A caveat from Wipneus: "Note that the (not indicated) statistical error bars are quite large."
The PIOMAS anomaly graph shows that the anomaly trend line has exited the 2 STD zone (here is last month's graph), which means volume is dropping faster than the 1979-2012 linear trend:
I have used my crude method of dividing PIOMAS volume numbers by Cryosphere Today area numbers to calculate the average thickness of the ice pack. Again, this is just an indication that allows us to compare with previous years:
Average thickness for May 31st (in m):
- 2005: 2.33
- 2006: 2.31
- 2007: 2.16
- 2008: 2.29
- 2009: 2.14
- 2010: 1.95
- 2011: 1.86
- 2012: 1.82
I have updated my graphics at ArctischePinguin:
Monthly data:
https://sites.google.com/site/arctischepinguin/home/piomas/piomas-trnd2.png
Daily data:
https://sites.google.com/site/arctischepinguin/home/piomas/piomas-trnd4.png
Daily data with a "prediction" based on exponential trend:
https://sites.google.com/site/arctischepinguin/home/piomas/piomas-trnd4-1.png
Posted by: Wipneus | June 05, 2012 at 20:24
Thanks, wipneus. I have updated the post with your 'prediction' graph.
Posted by: Neven | June 05, 2012 at 20:57
Right, two days ago I wrote I’d better wait for PIOMAS. But I voted for the lowest SIA/SIE anyway. Based on MODIS. And bad it is, day 157! And just hours ago that is confirmed through PIOMAS. We’re going to be very lucky if weather will veil the worst of high summer from this broken mess. SIA is going for a stunner anyway. The question is how much can thin remains spread?
Posted by: Werther | June 05, 2012 at 22:33
Not sure which thing to post this under:
http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2012/05/14/120514fa_fact_specter is a look at geoengineering "solutions." It seems to be a somewhat reasonable assessment, although it does not seem to include Caldeira's statement that drastic cuts in emissions are a prerequisite for any such "solution".
Posted by: Wayne Kernochan | June 06, 2012 at 16:43
Climate forecasts since 1995 have dramatically understated the situation. The climate models still do not do ice dynamics (related to sea level rise) or carbon feed backs. The models got Arctic sea ice wrong, and yet we still give them full credit because everything was so carefully peer reviewed.
We need to be honest about our situation and do full "life-cycle" environmental impact studies of all proposed solutions. Conservation (not emitting CO2) is energetically better than trying capture it after it is emitted and diluted into the atmosphere - always. Anybody that wants to capture ongoing CO2 emissions, is wasting energy. That means their hidden agenda is selling energy.
The real problem is that the geo-engineering people are thinking in terms of the IPCC's sea level rise statements, and those are as likely to be as wrong as their statements about Arctic sea ice.
Geo-engineering does not work if financial and technical centers are flooded (e.g., 2+ meters SLR) in the next century. And that is possible if the IPCC was as wrong about SLR as they were about loss of sea ice.
Posted by: Aaron Lewis | June 06, 2012 at 18:55
"if the IPCC was as wrong about SLR as they were about loss of sea ice."
The IPCC isn't 'wrong' about SLR. They openly stated they didn't have data or models adequate to do the job properly - so they excluded _any_ quantity for icesheet contribution.
The next IPCC report will have some icesheet numbers in, probably with bigger than desirable error bars. But I doubt the numbers will be pretty.
Posted by: adelady | June 07, 2012 at 02:38
The new (June) NSIDC report is out:
http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/2012/06/arctic-sea-ice-variable-ends-may-below-average/
Posted by: Apocalypse4Real | June 07, 2012 at 04:12
That almost monotonically decreasing crude thickness result (with 2008 out of line only by one position) is even more scary than the end of season extent figures. We have lost 20% of the ice thickness in 5 years, while end of May extent hasn't changed heaps.
Posted by: David Penington | June 08, 2012 at 03:27
After the harshest winter in Alaska in recorded satellite history (since 1978), the following description from 1958 may put ice thickness in the Bering into perspective. This is from the first passage under the Arctic sea ice, by the Nautilus, in 1958. The first attempt (in early June) failed :
http://www.navy.mil/navydata/cno/n87/usw/usw_summer_09/nautilus.html
Posted by: Rob Dekker | June 11, 2012 at 11:21