No sooner had we shown that if you add back in the data from before 1979 there’s no secular trend in the last half-century of Arctic sea ice extent, and that it was rebounding in early 2024, than the arctic doomsters and sealioners said pfffft, who cares about extent, it’s volume that matters. Which is clearly a bait-and-switch since they sure cared about extent when they thought it supported their case. But OK, let’s talk volume. The Polar Science Centre, a network of researchers operating out of the University of Washington, maintains a “PIOMAS” data series (PIOMAS stands for “Pan-Arctic Ice Ocean Modeling and Assimilation System) that shows volume more or less tracking extent from 1979 to the present. Meaning yes, it’s been going down, but not since 2012, which is odd if the crisis has been accelerating since blah blah blah. And what about before 1979? You have to battle hordes of formats and qualifiers to get to this chart which shows, um, levels consistently lower in the 1960s than the vast majority of years since (up to 2010, where their chart stops):

In many other ways the pattern evident from their research is not what the people parroting half-understood talking points claim it is. It’s not direct measurement, it’s “reanalysis” and yes, they compare data from the same date each year “to remove the annual cycle”. Doing so indicates that there was a low in 2017, as opposed to 2012 for the extent (though only late in the year for the latter; much of 2012 saw fairly robust ice extent). And since then volume has grown, “with a lot of recent years clustered around 22.5 10³ km³”. So far so odd.

Here’s something else. The “hottest year ever”^TM, was singled out, at least rhetorically:

“2023 finished with an annually averaged sea ice volume that was the 9^th lowest on record with 14,122 km³ with recent years all clustered closely together. 2017 still holds the annual volume record with 12.800 km³.”

They mean the record low, of course. But why? How? Why not 2023? And again we caution readers to take statements like “9^th lowest on record” with a grain of sea salt since the modern satellite record only covers 45 years, meaning it’s nowhere near the bottom as you’d expect if the hype were correct. Nine years is a fifth of that entire period. So eight other years were lower in the last 45. Unscary.

Also remember that these vaunted satellite measurements are not hard data even if satellites are cool and high-tech. They are multi-step interpretations of signals and thus, as they note, another estimate “shows an anomaly thickness pattern very similar to that from PIOMAS, but the pattern seems amplified with stronger positive and negative anomalies.” And actually we’re messing with you a bit, because that other one is the “Satellite derived sea ice thickness (CryoSat 2, AWI algorithm v2.6)”. It’s the satellite record, not PIOMAS, which by contrast, is a hodgepodge.

We don’t say it critically. On the contrary, they’re trying to scrape together all the data they can, check their reconstructions against what can be measured, and refine the model accordingly, which is commendable. But it’s not easy. As they rightly caution:

“Sea ice volume is an important climate indicator. It depends on both ice thickness and extent and [is] therefore more directly tied to climate forcing than extent alone. However, Arctic sea ice volume cannot currently be observed continuously. Observations from satellites, Navy submarines, moorings, and field measurements are all limited in space and time. The assimilation of observations into numerical models currently provides one way of estimating sea ice volume changes on a continuous basis over several decades. Comparisons of the model estimates of the ice thickness with observations help test our understanding of the processes represented in the model that are important for sea ice formation and melt.”

Scientists should not be reproached when they identify uncertainties or even errors, as for instance when:

“We identified a programming error in a routine that interpolates ice concentration data prior to assimilation. The error only affected data from 2010-2013. These data have been reprocessed and are now available as version 2.1. Ice thickness is generally greater in the Beaufort Chukchi Sea area with the largest differences in thickness during May. Differences in ice volume are up to 11% greater in late spring.”

For admitting and fixing an error they should be commended not heckled. But people who deny, ignore or fail to notice these uncertainties and blare that these numbers are harder than adamant should be criticized for being loudly irritatingly obtuse. Especially because if PIOMAS can have one such error and detect it, there could be others not yet spotted.

PIOMAS is highly speculative, and designed by people convinced global warming is melting the ice and will keep doing so:

“Significant changes in arctic climate have been detected in recent years. One of the most striking changes is the decline of sea ice concurrent with changes in atmospheric circulation and increased surface air temperature. This arctic warming trend, as consistently projected by global climate models (GCMs), is likely to continue into the future. The trend will lead to a diminished arctic sea-ice cover. Diminution of ice cover will greatly impact the regional and global climate. Less ice cover will also affect the socio-economic and ecosystems in the north polar region.”

Still, we’re not afraid of their data, partly because they seem scrupulously careful and honest. And it doesn’t show what they thought it would, or what we were assured it would.