http://igloo.atmos.uiuc.edu/cgi-bin/test/print.sh?fm=12&fd=24&fy=2008&sm=12&sd=25&sy=2008

Adjacent days with very different snow!

” My main concern is the apparent change in the designated shoreline.” Your point is that they can change the designated shoreline without changing the background image? If correct, your concern would be valid. But wouldn’t that practice be the equivalent of changing the actual shoreline, and wouldn’t that be equivalent to changing the base map?

This is why I went to Google Earth, to see if I could see any apparent changes to the shore line in this area from the 1980 map. What I found is that the shoreline depicted by Google Earth looks alot more like that of the 1980 CT depiction of the ice limit line than that of 2008. An adjustment of the designated shore line, as it looks like occurred sometime between 1980 and 2008, would not match the original base map, nor would it match today’s actual shoreline, nor would it be supportable. But it would arbitrarily constrain the pixel count of allowable sea ice.

At least in the case of the area around Sabetta, the actual shoreline certainly appears to be much further inland than shown on the 2008 image. Since Sabetta is obviously an on-going shoreline settlement, the designated shoreline in the 2008 image would appear to be wrong, afterall, no one operates ice breakers on solid ground. Unfortunately, at the scale depicted by the CT images, it would not be possible to determine how wrong.

Perhaps, the appropriate entity, could be asked to compare the Latitude and Longitude of known shoreline settlements like Sabetta, to the L & L of the designated shoreline used in the current pixel counting routines. Or, simply be asked to divulge the L & L’s of the designated shoreline. These figures could easily be checked against the L & L displayed at any point by Google Earth.

OT…but here’s a great new business opportunity, and if we hurry, we can get in on the ground floor.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,472785,00.html

“Travelers will enter their destination into the kiosk, which will calculate the amount of carbon dioxide for which they are responsible and the cost of offsetting it. After swiping their credit cards, they would get a receipt listing the exact carbon-reducing projects their money went to.”

Wonder what the overhead is per transaction

I’ll have a guess at something close to 100%

Yes, very perplexing. But there are obvious discrepancies with CT that need to be addressed.

Google Earth is a good tool to the extent that it can provide the same perspective as Cryosphere Today, at the same general scale. As I pointed out, it also has imbedded photos and other information that can be useful. Plus, someone could contact the photographer of these shots of Sabetta, to see how accurately her Lat&Long was recorded for each shot. Recall she has 4 shots of ice breakers in action off the coast tis year and last year (that is apparently now land), one way or another she found a way to visit the location for the photo.

Finally, those ice breakers off of Sabetta, surely weren’t on dry land. They were there for a purpose.

I’ve done a cursory check of the other arctic areas that have changed sea coast designations and there are other pieces of imbedded information in Google Earth at some of these other locations that might be worthwhile. Its worth looking.

So… let me bite at your final question. Are they Climate refugees? No! Only in modeled virtual reality. At home, they are at peace, living day to day life. Entirely oblivious to this discussion and anything having to do with any changes that are supposed to have occurred in their lifestyle. Can you imagine any people better suited to describe the potential effects of the wrath of nature?

Nice to meet you Mike. I’ve been tracking the technical basis of this issues for a couple of years, but only today jumped into your discussion.

I checked the Ob River outlet on Google Earth and found some interesting photos posted near the town of Sabetta. At 71-16′-35.97″ N and 72-10′-27.98″ E, there is a photo posted of a Russian Nuclear Powered Ice Breaker at work. This is a location that seems to be indicated as a non sea ice area on the Cryosphere site. There are other interesting photos of other ice breakers at work, clearly on frozen sea ice, as well as some land based photos that show the shoreline near Sabetta. Also, though I can’t say with precision, the town seems to have been there for a while since some of the photos are dated back 13 years or so and it has a name. If the shoreline were moving one direction or the other, I suspect Sabetta would be threatened.

Thanks. The information that I have from NASA SP-489 is interesting. There is a pronounced increase in the ice from 1973 to 75 and then a drop in 76. The data was not daily data but monthly in the NASA publication.

I am currently hunting for the old Nimbus 2″ Analog data tapes as I have the last surviving tape drives in the world that are functioning and will play that data.

Dr William Chapman,
Can you please explain a couple of things on the Cryosphere Today “Compare side-by-side images of Northern Hemisphere sea ice extent” product, please?Why does the snow in the more recent dates cover areas that were previously sea inlets, fjords, coastal sea areas, islands and rivers? (Water areas, most easily discernible in the River Ob inleyWhy does the sea ice in the older images cover land areas? (Land areas, most easily discernible in River Ob inlet)See this overlay: http://i44.tinypic.com/330u63t.jpgLooking forward to your answer,
Mike Bryant

Why does the snow in the more recent dates cover areas that were previously sea inlets, fjords, coastal sea areas, islands and rivers? (Water areas, most easily discernible in the River Ob inley

Why does the sea ice in the older images cover land areas? (Land areas, most easily discernible in River Ob inlet)

See this overlay: http://i44.tinypic.com/330u63t.jpg

Looking forward to your answer,
Mike Bryant

hernadi-key (02:57:18) :
“…
3. Beer Gets More Expensive

In April, the Associated Press reported that global warming was going to hit beer drinkers in the wallet because the cost of barley would increase, driving up the price of a pint.
…’

Just wait til the AGW crowd realizes that most baking, all ale/beer brewing, and all fermentation of wine which involves yeast – which, to the best of my knowledge, they all do – produce CO2. Then wait for the inevitable demand for carbon credits, or even banning, of those activities.

Home brewing will probably once again be made illegal.

- Sigh -

hernadi-key (02:57:18) :
…
3. Beer Gets More Expensive

In April, the Associated Press reported that global warming was going to hit beer drinkers in the wallet because the cost of barley would increase, driving up the price of a pint.
…

Just wait til the AGW crowd realizes that most baking, all ale/beer brewing, and all fermentation of wine which involves yeast – which, to the best of my knowledge, they all do – produce CO2. Then wait for the inevitable demand for carbon credits, or even banning, of those activities.

Home brewing will probably once again be made illegal.

- Sigh -

They get equal billing here:
http://nsidc.org/data/smmr_ssmi_ancillary/area_extent.html

By the way the current Cryosphere maps are higher resolution than was used in the 80’s.

If, in the 80s the sea ice was in places that are now land, I guess the sea level must have been much higher in the 80s than now! The Arctic ocean bucks the trend!! :)

Perhaps the land is still rebounding from the last ice age.