70 Trillion cubic feet of New Arctic Ice


3-transitional images, Jan-2009, Jan-2010, Jan-2011

Comparing imagery of January arctic sea ice from 2009 to 2011 sourced from the U.S. Navy Polar Ice Prediction System, it appears as though the ice sheet has thickened substantially.

That is, the arctic ice during January 2009 compared to January 2010 compared to January 2011, all purposefully compared during the same month of each year.

This observation is looking at ice thickness – not surface area – although some retreat of 1 meter ice can be seen in the Labrador Sea.

Up to 500,000 square miles of the arctic sea region may have thickened from approximately 5 feet thick during January 2009 to approximately 10 feet thick during January 2011.

The ice thickness scale color, dark blue, corresponds to about 1.5 meters, or about 5 feet.

The color green represents about 3 meters, or about 10 feet.

The estimated area that has changed from dark blue to green measures approximately 500,000 square miles based on approximated Google Earth ruler measurements (1,500 miles length by a bit more than 300 miles width, on average – call it 333).

At an increased thickness of 5 feet, that calculates out to be…
500,000 x (5,280 x 5280) x 5 = 69,626,304,000,000

might as well round it to 70,000,000,000,000 cubic feet

It’s getting colder out there!

…which may bring about an entirely new preparedness category
“mini Ice Age”

(actually, we are well within a ‘La Nina’ cycle – cooling of the tropical Pacific Ocean surface)

An interesting ‘coincidence’ is that the magnetic north pole drift direction is nearly the same as the increase in ice sheet depth.

Update, Just for fun, I decided to also capture and loop 3 additional images – one each from Sep-2008, Sep-2009, Sep-2010, to see whether or not a similar apparent increase in ice thickness was visible during that time of year, similar to what is evident while comparing the January ‘winter’ images.

I took the liberty of circling the ‘green’ areas of each image, which represents ice thickness of about 10 feet and greater (3 meters +).

Sep-2008 vs. Sep-2009, looks like the ’09 slide may have a bit more thick ice – pretty close – there’s certainly more ‘light blue’ building up (2 meter ice)

Sep-2009 vs. Sep-2010, looks like the ’10 slide definitely has more of the thick ice

That’s my own interpretation with my eyes though – you be the judge.

3-transitional images, Sep-2008, Sep-2009, Sep-2010

Note: The curiosity to look at recent Arctic ice was born from this winter’s extra cold and precipitation in parts of the northern hemisphere – no attempts are made to calculate the overall sea ice change (globally, or in the entire northern hemisphere) or infer anything prior to 3 years. The January map loop shows slight reduction at southwest Greenland (Labrador Sea), some reduction in Hudson Bay, while some increase at northeast Greenland (Greenland Sea) – possibly an overall neutral effect there. The vast majority of apparent change is in the Arctic Ocean.

By the way, if anyone notices… the URL link to this article refers to 13 billion cubic feet while the title refers to 70 trillion… that was an error on my part (the 13 billion), but I corrected the error and title, minutes after having first posted it (while the URL remains the same). I had left out a critical multiple in the formula – that is, 5280 x 5280 to get proper square footage per square mile, whereas the original calculation mistakenly used only ‘5280’ one time. Rest assured, the estimate is now correct. You can run the math yourself…

If you enjoyed this, or topics of preparedness, geophysical – current events – risks, consider our survival blog RSS feed, new posts by E-mail, or bookmark us at Modern Survival Blog

Similar Posts


  1. Very simple, if one follows the path the magnetic north, one can clearly see that there is a correlation between the direction of the ice and the Arctic pole.
    And as in any ice age, global warming is typical (pre-heating post-cooling).
    There are parts that get hotter and others that get cooler, there is no global warming nor cooling, because earth is still getting ready to go Ice Age.
    Tendency as we draw closer to the “start of the Ice Age”, is that whist summers might be really hot, winters will last longer and will be colder.
    Viktor Bokov is a very good source for knowing more about the coming Ice Age.
    We have to have in mind not only the natural earth changes, but solar activity as well, as it affect our planet too.
    I’m fed up of all of that anthropological climate change selling by Al Gorrone and his Cap ‘n trade Friendsters.
    Shame on all those sold scientists.
    We’ll see what happens when solar scientists enter IPCC in UN…
    ’til now they’re vetoed…

  2. Today’s New York Times claims the Arctic is actually warming while the Eastern seaboard is freezing. Anything
    to salvage AGW (AL Gore World).

    1. @Jerry, source: U.S. Navy Polar Ice Prediction System run by the Naval Oceanographic Office (NAVO), apparently a subset of the Navy DSRC, DoD Supercomputing Resource Centers. Again, this post and observation is simply comparing 3 views, each during the same month of January (’09, ’10, ’11).

      I had the idea to have a look, inspired from the extraordinary cold and snowy weather we’ve been having in parts of the northern hemisphere this winter. Was curious to discover the apparent expansion of thickness and thought it would be interesting to others. Not pushing any agenda or making any claims regarding cooling/warming/change/etc… Instead, just looking at 3 slides of data and found it curious.

  3. Pole-flip anyone?. Heavier ice at the Arctic will outweigh the ice in the Antarctic causing the top-heavy world to flip 180 degrees. South becomes north and north becomes south.

  4. The source of global warming is very obvious: the sun. It’s been documented that there are solar cycles. We MIGHT be having an impact on the global climate, but in my opinion, it’s minor.

    1. Polar bears are called “threatened” even though there are more of them than 50 yrs ago.

  5. @Louise
    Thank you for giving me a hearty chuckle this morning!
    I guess we should we be nailing our furniture to the floor in preparation for the “pole-flip”?

  6. Does no one reading this UNDERSTAND the DIFFERENCE between SEASONAL ICE which melts and refreezes SEASONALLY and the THOUSANDS of YEARS OLD PACK ICE which has been lost due to “Global Warming” and is NOT REFORMING_PERIOD?

    1. Well said. The sea surface ice is freshwater, NOT seawater! It’s largely run off from melting land-based glaciers, and as you correctly stated “seasonal”. This adds up to something pretty nasty on the horizon.

  7. Joe Nytro says:
    January 25, 2011 at 9:03 pm

    Today’s New York Times claims the Arctic is actually warming while the Eastern seaboard is freezing. Anything
    to salvage AGW (AL Gore World).

    Joe, you’re problem is obvious, like so many others, you THINK and SEE the world in a very NARROW MINDED way, equating “Global Warming” to a LOCALIZED AREA rather than accepting the science of it encompassing the entire planet is NOT very FORWARD THINKING.

    When you discover that the world is larger than your own back yard then you might start to understand the basic principals of cause and effect on a planetary scale.

  8. It takes 12″ inches of snow to condence in to 1″ of artic ice that means for 5 feet (60″) of new ice to form there would have to have been 720″ (60 feet) of snow fall without melting during the summer months. If this is the case, we could be in for some trouble in terms of climate change/ global warming. If it contunues to grow even during the summer months we could be heading for a mini iceage.

  9. The issue is the large glaciers melting at extremely fast rates. Being hundreds of feet high, they could take 1000’s of years to reform. The biggest surprise was the sun returning to Greenland 2 days earlier this year. This was due to the receding ice pack lowering the horizon.

    1. Job security for many of the Chicken Little Crowd! NSIDC will also show the loewst EVAH ice in the Arctic region! Just BAU for NSIDC. Reality does not count because ice conditions are the result of models with different Al-Gore-Rhythms based loosely on real world observations but mostly extrapolated. Just like Global Surface Temperatures and most any other indice they use to to promote their agenda!

      1. The AGW crowd discarded decades of original weather balloon data at East Anglia University because they “didn’t have room for it” as they built a new facility. When the “climategate” documents were released, they were interested only in finding and punishing the “hacker” (I think it was an inside job. Perhaps someone had a bout of conscience). These documentd showed a pattern of falsification and deceit from day one from the AWG gang.

  10. It is not arctic sea (salt ice); it is fresh water ice coming from within the hollow earth. The gov’t is trying to throw you off. Can’t you guys remember when they wanted to move icebergs for there fresh water. What happen to your memory? There is a big (1400 mile diameter hole), both at the supposed north pole and south pole. Remember Admiral Byrd’s flight into the hollow earth. Oh well, I give up trying to inform the human race.

  11. War is peace.
    Freedom is slavery.
    Ignorance is strength…

    I guess we can now add that Hot is cold. Warming is cooling.

    How long must the talking heads practice to mutter global warming is the cause of the record breaking snows & lows?


  12. Think about it, A.C., the old pack ice is what exactly if not acccumulated seasonal ice? The old pack ice you say has been lost due to “global warming” has undergone continual fluctuations and redistributions of its volume. You make an assertion for which there is NO evidence, i.e. that global “warming” has caused a permanent loss; then you use this as the basis for a further assertion that this ice is “not re-forming.” How do you know it’s not re-forming? How else would it do so other than by means of annual accumulation? Wind and albedo feedbacks will move it around. But here we have evidence of a real increase in volume. You respond by insisting that it is NOT an increase in volume. Very rational.

    1. This is the same crowd that insists that spotted owls will only nest in “old growth” trees (which were “new growth” at one time). This implies that if I burn down your house, you are not smart enough to build a new one. I guess the falcons living in cities only nest in “old growth” skyscrapers.

  13. after being a seasonal worker for over 45 years one gets to know weather cycles,your living depends on it I have noticed that there is a 10 year weather cycle this winter was the coldest part of this cycle and this cycle is now coming to an end. Normaly towards the end of a cycle there is a shift in the last half with weather conditions and planet conditions getting worse for the last 4 to 5 years like earthquakes typhoons snow,storms ect; right now there is a 7week difference in the seasons ask any farmer in europe may was a warm sunny time now it is more like the beginning of what was considerd the weather for march the good news is it should be getting warmer in the next 4/5 years and of course you will hear globle warming crys abound

  14. Let me see if I got this right. IF the Global Ice Sheet increases, it is due to global warming…If the Global Ice sheed decreases, it is due to global warming. Ahh, The science is indeed settled! We can now offer our fatted calf at the Al Gore Alter. These Global Warming kooks view this scam with religious devotion. They worship the creation and not the creator, misguided and foolish.

  15. When your pole shifts (this takes a few years) your magnetic field basically goes dormant because of the lack of alignment of the molten vortexes. The sun will be feeling hotter. Those of you with 50 years on this planet know that the sun is whiter, and hotter on the skin than it used to be. This is not Al Gore’s fault. Why do you think your world governments have created cities underground which are self-sustaining for a world population of 500 million?

  16. Try again this with a larger amount of dates, start from 1990 or 1980, even more to have a good idea… Shouldn’t try to understand what’s happening on earth with only 3 years…

    1. @lhierckens, My curiosity had nothing to do with that time frame – simply curious to see whether or not the recent colder weather, and the current ‘La Nina’ in the Pacific, has affected ice up north. Seems that it possibly has. It has been surprising (maybe not too surprising) how so many have used this tidbit for-or-against their viewpoint on global warming/cooling/change, etc…

      No doubt, the earth has changed through cycles over the ages and will continue to do so after we’re gone. Keep’s it interesting.

  17. I have an ipad and added the compass app. Right from the word go it will not calibrate correctly. It works on assisted gps.

    How is the pole shift going to affect flights, and land based gps systems all over the world?

    I have checked with other users and they are having the same issues. However the compasses have worked fine previously. Does that mean that much of the recent pole shift has occurred very recently?

    This site is very useful. I would be interested to see what authority posters have…


  18. Global warming or not we know that ice ages come and go and the rise of the ocean surface taking land or giving land is an easy measurement and proof of these changes. We read about all these measurements being made for the ice melting and now thicking of ice but why don’t we hear more about rising ocean levels and the resultant effects of our life styles on the ocean’s edges.

  19. Magnitude 7 – 7.9
    2010 Earthquakes (21)
    annual average (14)
    140% of 100yr. annual avg. to day #365

    Er dude that’s 150% not 140%

    14=2 times 7
    21=3 times 7

    All the best Steve

    1. @Steve, Actually I had the 140% correct, but had incorrectly noted on my sidebar list that the annual 100-yr average was 14. The actual average from the data is 15 (and was using the correct number in my spreadsheet – fortunately — 21/15=1.4). Thanks for noticing! I also noticed that the USGS tweaked their 2010 year end numbers slightly, so I updated accordingly.

  20. The reason that we don’t take global warming seriously is the refusal to make sacrifices to the gluttonous life styles of the western culture.

  21. those who laugh last laugh the loudest

    Al is waiting to laugh last but it will be a sad laugh

  22. Has anyone done the research on icebreakers and reducing ice sheets? large ice sheets anchored to land will probably melt a lot slower? Smaller ice sheets give more area space to touch ocean water and with all these countries keeping shipping routes open and breaking up the ice sheets, letting it drift and flow to warmer currents makes me think it is man made effects but not from pollution.One other point i thought of was i read an article about Spain doing research and found out that there cities where 10 degrees warmer than there rural areas.And that asphalt roads and roof tops where the culprit.So taking a temp reading over the last 50 years and cities growing that makes since it looks like global warming not not from pollution.

  23. Roflol, Naw just let them keep bitchin so they can raise taxes. Al Gore probably bought a
    couple icebreakers and run them 24 – 7.

  24. Why is everyone so obsessed with surviving? People die everyday. The world will be a better place when humans are wiped out anyway. Just go and enjoy yourselves, forget about this rubbish and get on with your lives. Accept you are finite and take death when it comes with a bit of grace. We’re the last generation to have such an easy time of it, and you got five years max before it all starts falling down around your ears. The initial signs are already there.

  25. Chris says:
    “Why is everyone so obsessed with surviving? People die everyday. The world will be a better place when humans are wiped out anyway.”

    You’re absolutely correct, Chris. You go first… :)

  26. Interesting post. I see things differently, though. According to the Cryosphere Today satellite observations, the Arctic did not have full ice over this winter. Their color coding shows large areas with less than 100% ice coverage. This is the first winter this has happened. Because of that, I am expecting a serious retreat of ice coverage this summer. I am expecting the old record minimum of 3 million sq. kilometers set in 2007, to be broken, and a new record around 2 million sq. kilometers to be set.
    Note: Cryosphere Today uses “ice coverage”, NSIDC uses “ice extent”, which measure differently.

    I do not believe that ice is recovering in the Arctic. Far from it. Since 2007, the Kara, Leptev, Beaufort, East Siberian, and Chuchki seas have all gone almost ice free each summer. That is a profound departure from historic patterns. I believe that this summer will see a significant amount of open ocean in the Arctic Basin, which normally stays ice covered year round.

  27. I agree with Craig D., I have been following the ice retreat in the Arctic (and across the world) for over ten years and find the Pips is A SIMULATION/”prediction” and does not coincide with the data provided by the NSIDC ( http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/2011/032311.html )for example the report from march 2011:

    “March 23, 2011
    Annual maximum ice extent reached

    Arctic sea ice extent appeared to reach its maximum extent for the year on March 7, marking the beginning of the melt season. This year’s maximum tied for the lowest in the satellite record., at 14.64 million square kilometers (5.65 million square miles). The maximum extent was 1.2 million square kilometers (471,000 square miles) below the 1979 to 2000 average of 15.86 million square kilometers (6.12 million square miles), and equal (within 0.1%) to 2006 for the lowest maximum extent in the satellite record.”

    someone is nudging the data as the p.i.p.s. modeling chose only January , because it is generally a stable ice growth month and only the last three years because of the massive dip (lowest in recorded history )in ice extent in 2007and the the slight re-bound after that,but even at that teh ice extent does not match the map for January from 1979 to 2011 is here : http://nsidc.org/images/arcticseaicenews/20110202_Figure3.png , as you can see the extent data shows a decline that is clearly not well modeled by pips

    about the current situation:

    “Arctic sea ice extent for May 2011 was the third lowest in the satellite data record since 1979, continuing the long-term decline. During the month of May, sea ice declined at a near average rate, while air temperatures in the Arctic remained generally above average. Although ice extent is low for this time of year, ice extent at the end of summer largely depends on weather over the next few months.” ( http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/ )

    So if we have the pressure inversion that has been present in the Arctic the last couple of years that keeps the skies clear then unprecedented (record breaking) rapid melting will indeed occur this summer,also Pips is giving the impression of thicker ice and more of it seeming to migrat to a larger area , the data is in direct opposition to the data presented by the nsidc :

    “Is Arctic sea ice starting to recover?

    In 2008, Arctic sea ice reached a minimum extent that was about 10 percent greater than the record low of 2007, and the minimum extent in 2009 was greater than either 2007 or 2008. Does this mean that Arctic sea ice is beginning to recover?

    Even though the extent of Arctic sea ice has not returned to the record low of 2007,

    the data show that it is not recovering.

    To recover would mean returning to within its previous, long-term range. Arctic sea ice in September 2008 remained 34 percent below the average extent from 1979 to 2000, and in September 2009, it was 24 percent below the long term average. In addition, sea ice remains much thinner than in the past, and so is more vulnerable to further decline. The data suggest that the ice reached a record low volume in 2008, and has thinned even more in 2009. Sea ice extent normally varies from year to year, much like the weather changes from day to day. But just as one warm day in October does not negate a cooling trend toward winter, a slight annual gain in sea ice extent over a record low does not negate the long-term decline.

    In addition, ice extent is only one measure of sea ice. Satellite measurements from NASA show that in 2008,

    Arctic sea ice was thinner than 2007,

    and likely reached a record low volume. So, what would scientists call a recovery in sea ice? First, a true recovery would continue over a longer time period than two years. Second, scientists would expect to see a series of minimum sea ice extents that not only exceed the previous year, but also return to within the range of natural variation. In a recovery, scientists would also expect to see a return to an

    Arctic sea ice cover dominated by thicker, multiyear ice. (http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/faq.html#why_more)

    1. Unless I am misinterpreting the definition of ‘extent’, the post article here is referring to sea ice ‘volume’, i.e. thickness, rather than ‘extent’ which I interpret to be ‘area’.

  28. Mid-July now, Arctic ice melting faster than in 2007. Two months of flooding from the headwaters of the Missouri to the Gulf. Looks like the Northwest Passage will be open by the end of July.

    Once moer the real scientists are proven correct.

  29. It looks like the ice is following the magnetic pole to me. Perhaps Costa del Ireland soon ;-)

Leave a Reply

>>USE OPEN FORUM for Off-Topic conversation

Name* use an alias