Who knows, maybe Congress will direct NOAA, NASA and EPA to launch a satellite to provide these measurements on a more regular basis.

Only the ice extent sensors (IR radiometers)give you a real time look at the ice cover, day and night, even through clouds. And they can cover the entire pole in just one 24 hour set of passes. The other data has to be assembled and interpreted, which the denialists use as an excuse to dismiss it altogether. As for the area and ice extent info (which also has its drawbacks, like it has to be calibrated with ground truth measurements in situ) well, they just ignore that. They simply don’t want to believe any of it, or (more likely) they believe it but don’t want anyone else to believe it. They are partisan propagandists.

I hope you can see, Rob, why these people give RL and I such shivering fits. Its not because they disagree with us, its because they are lying to you.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ground-penetrating_radar#History

The surface ice area is easy to measure by satellite, but the thick, old or MYI (multi-year ice) has to be modeled from multiple data sources so the measurements aren’t quite as reliable. How the ice is divided into different types throughout the year also tells us something about the processes involved. And sometimes ponds of melt water ON the ice mislead the sensors, as do thick layers of porous, fluffy snow on top of pack ice.

The point is that the people who study this have lots of tools and lots of different ways to study it. They’ve learned a great deal and they really care, they really want to understand this because not only is it interesting science, but it is so important to all of us. You can see why we get so impatient with the denialists who dismiss it all as just another liberal conspiracy to raise taxes and regulate business. Taxes and regulation seem to be the only thing these people care about.

Check out the National Snow and Ice Data Center, JAXA (the Japanese Space Agency) and the Neven ice blog, which I often cite here and they will point you to other agencies and institutes and data sites that study this problem. This is real, this is important, it really matters. They don’t always agree, which is what you’d expect in a developing field at the frontiers of knowledge. The scientists DO agree that something BIG is happening to the Earth’s climate but they are full of disagreement and debate as to just how it will play out. This is exactly as it should be in science. But at least they are trying to get it right, not confuse the issue or change the subject altogether

You have to excuse me if I get a bit short-tempered with those who are doing every thing they can to discredit this work for purely political and economic reasons. They are simply unforgivable. They are no better than slavers, pimps, war criminals, drug lords, human traffikers, or arms merchants.

Denialists have never accepted volume figures because they claim the models are all rigged by Liberal scientists, that the assumptions are all phony, so I never used those figures until recently when I started publishing PIOMAS data here. I only use the sea ice extent (SIE) graphs because they are clear, unambiguous, and undenialble. (SIE = area of ocean with at least 15% ice cover.) However, that is not the only dataset that’s out there, its just the most convincing one.

Of course, the denialists never accepted the SIE figures either… They, like creationists, refuse to believe the science for religious reasons. I guess they have just convinced themselves that if AGW goes away they’ll get their nice job at the coal mine back. Sorry for the snark, but I’ve been very depressed and very angry lately, and that’s not a good combination.

Neven’s ice blog keeps track of the monthly PIOMAS volume report. Here are the September figures and chart. Follow the links to the PIOMAS website and see the whole report. As you can see, volume didn’t go below the 2012 SIE record either, but the comparison with the last few years and the averages tells the same sad story. Volume doesn’t track SIE perfectly, but its pretty close.

http://neven1.typepad.com/.a/6a0133f03a1e37970b01b8d2a83128970c-800wi

Its not as low as some previous September minima, but its still lower than all the maxima. The beat goes on, and the trend continues. Don’t fall for the denialist mantra; “The Arctic ice is recovering” just because the record low ice was five years ago. But the record is broken, nonetheless, about every five years on the average. Check out the graph, see for yourself. The decline, some say collapse, of the N polar icecap continues unabated.