Lakes For Sale, Partially Thawed, N=20

Guest Post By Willis Eschenbach

Anthony pointed out the selling of overhyped claims of the “dramatic thinning” of Arctic ice here. The title of the underlying scientific study is much more prosaic, Response of ice cover on shallow lakes of the North Slope of Alaska to contemporary climate conditions (1950–2011): radar remote-sensing and numerical modeling data analysis.  (PDF). To their credit, the authors make no such claims of drama in their text, which is generally quite appropriately restrained.

Here is their complete “dramatic” dataset of the lakes around Barrow, Alaska, the northernmost point in the US:

percentage barrow lakes partially thawedFigure 1. Percentage of lakes in the low-lying tundra around Barrow, Alaska that are partially thawed in late April, 1992-2011. Photo Source.

It’s an interesting study. They noted that partially thawed lakes look very different on radar than when the same lakes are frozen solid. As a result, they’ve collected solid data that is not affected by urban warming. So … what’s not to like in the study? Let me start with what is to like in the study.

I do like the accuracy of the measurements. It’s an interesting metric, with very objective criteria. I like that they listed the data in their paper, and showed photos for each of the years. I like that they didn’t try to project the results out to 2080.

What I didn’t like is where their study went from there. After collecting all that great data, they immediately sent out for that perennial favorite, a global climate model … not my style at all.

So rather than pointing out that their study is models all the way down, I figured I’d just show the kind of analysis that I would do if I were handed the lake thawing data.

First thing I’d need for the analysis? MORE DATA. Piles and piles of data. So I went out and I dug up two datasets—Barrow temperature, and Barrow snow depths. I started with just the temperature, but it turns out that the correlation between temperature and the lake thawing isn’t all that good. It doesn’t explain much, the best correlation is with temperatures in December, 4 months prior to the thawing, at a correlation of 0.68. However, at least it gives a good idea of what’s been going on, because we have good records clear back to 1920.

how cold is winter in point barrowFigure 2. Winter temperatures in Point Barrow (pale blue line) and the 17 year Gaussian average of the data. Photo source http://www.panoramio.com/photo/63484316

I note in passing that Barrow has a well-documented Urban Heat Island that is at its strongest in winter … and despite that, the 1930s and 1940s both had warmer winters than the last decade. I also note in this context of winter-business-as-usual that the study says:

Climate-driven changes have significantly impacted high-latitude environments over recent decades, changes that are predicted to continue or even accelerate in the near future as projected by global climate models …

… but I digress.

So the next obvious suspect for a correlation with the lake thawingis the snow depth. It’s an odd fact of nature that snow is a good insulator. It both slows down heat transfer by insulating the surface, and it keeps the wind from contacting the ice.

So I looked at the average snow depth data (scroll down to “Custom Monthly Listing” in sidebar) … but it’s not all that good at emulating the ice thawing either—in fact it’s worse. With snow depth, the best correlation with average snow depth is only 0.51, again with December coming out on top. So, having investigated single variables to try to emulate the lake thawing, I turned to the combination of snow depth and temperature … not much luck there either. In fact, the only way I could get a good correlation was to use the combination of the Nov-Dec-Jan average temperature, and the December snow depth. This gave me a correlation of 0.81, and a p-value of 0.001 … which turns out to be just barely significant. Here’s the emulation:

emulation barrow lake thawing shortFigure 3. Emulation of Barrow lake thawing. Observations (thick red line) compares well with the emulation (thin green line). Correlation is 0.81, p-value is .0010.

Now … why did I say that a p-value of 0.001 is “barely significant”, when the usual level is a p-value of 0.05? Well … because I looked at so many possibilities before finding what I sought. All up, I looked at maybe 40 possibilities before finding this one. If you want to establish significance at the level of a p-value of 0.05, and you look at 40 datasets before finding it, you need to find something with a p-value less than 1-10(LOG(0.95)/N, where N is the number of datasets you looked at. For N=40, that gives a required p-value of better than 0.0013 … so with a p-value of 0.0010, my emulation just made it under the wire.

Next, I looked at what that same emulation would look like over the whole period 1950-2013 for which we have records, and not just the period 1992-2011 of the study (the “N=20” of the title). Figure 4 shows that result.

emulation barrow lake thawing longFigure 4. Exactly as in Figure 3, but covering the entire period of record.

OK … not a lot going on there. Now, those who follow my work know that I’m quite skeptical of this kind of modeling, particularly with such a short record. What I do to test that is first to find a model with an acceptable p-value. Then I take a look at both the emulation shown above, along with the same emulation using just the first half of the data to fit the parameters, and then the same thing using just the second half of the data. Figure 5 shows that result:

emulation barrow lake thawing long plusFigure 5. As in Figure 4, but showing the emulation based solely on the first half of the data (light blue), and that based solely on the second half (dark blue)

As emulations go, in my experience that’s not bad. The general shape of the emulation is well maintained, and neither of the two half-data emulations go far off of the rails, as is all too common with this type of analysis.

So that’s how I’d analyze the data, at least to begin with. My conclusions?

Well, my first conclusion has nothing to do with the lakes. It has to do with Figure 2, which shows that there is nothing out of the ordinary happening to Barrow winter temperatures. So whatever you might want to blame the lake thawing on, it’s not the local temperature. It’s hasn’t much changed over almost a century, it just goes up for a while and then down for a while.

The second conclusion is that the changes in the lake thawing dates over the period of study are not “dramatic”. In fact, they are boringly mundane. The only thing “dramatic” is the press release, which is no surprise.

The third conclusion is that I wouldn’t trust my emulation of lake thawing all that far … the problem is that with  N=20, we have so little data that any conclusions and any emulations will be fraught with uncertainty. Heck, look at Figure 1 … up until a few years before the end of the data there was not even much trend. It’s just too short to conclude much of anything.

Next, I wouldn’t trust their “CLIMo Lake Ice Model” much further than I’d trust my emulation above. Again, the underlying problem is lack of data … but to that you have to add the unknown performance of the CLIMo model.

Finally, while the authors were restrained in their study, they cut loose in their quotes for the press release, viz:

“We’ve found that the thickness of the ice has decreased tremendously in response to climate warming in the region,” said lead author Cristina Surdu, a PhD student of Professor Claude Duguay in Waterloo’s Department of Geography and Environmental Management. “When we saw the actual numbers we were shocked at how dramatic the change has been. It’s basically more than a foot of ice by the end of winter.”

and

“Prior to starting our analysis, we were expecting to find a decline in ice thickness and grounded ice based on our examination of temperature and precipitation records of the past five decades from the Barrow meteorological station,” said Surdu, “At the end of the analysis, when looking at trend analysis results, we were stunned to observe such a dramatic ice decline during a period of only 20 years.”

I see nothing “stunning” or “dramatic” in their results at all. Overall, it’s quite ho-hum.

My warmest regards to all, it’s bucketing down rain here after a long period of drought, life is good.

w.

AS USUAL … if you disagree with me or anyone, please quote the exact words you disagree with, and give us your objection to those words. That way, we can all be clear exactly what it is you are objecting to.

DATA AND CODE: Primary sources given above, plus it’s all in my Excel spreadsheet, Barrow Lake Thawing …

0 0 votes
Article Rating

Discover more from Watts Up With That?

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

64 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Old England
February 5, 2014 11:43 pm

I wonder if data on cloud cover would shed more light? Is there any data on black carbon being deposited ? Either of those might have an effect on the timing and rate of ice melt.

Lance Wallace
February 5, 2014 11:51 pm

Hi Willis, nice work. What’s your reference for the exponential correction to the p-value? If I remember correctly, the Bonferroni correction (which has come in for a lot of controversy) just divides .05 by N, so for an N of 40 it gives a value of p=0.00125 that needs to be beat to achieve significance. This is almost identical to the value you found from the exponential, so who knows, maybe that’s what Bonferroni did in the first place.

jorgekafkazar
February 6, 2014 12:04 am

I’d investigate humidity in the area, if there’s enough data to work with.

steveta_uk
February 6, 2014 12:10 am

HeHe – cloud cover would shed more light

Manfred
February 6, 2014 12:20 am

Wonder what missing years 2012 / 2013 would do with figure 1. They were both colder than the previous years, and 2013 Nenana Classic latest melt ever should give another indication.

Jon
February 6, 2014 12:51 am

“Figure 1. Percentage of lakes in the low-lying tundra around Barrow, Alaska that are partially thawed in late April, 1992-2011. Photo Source.”
How do they define “partially thawed”
?
I would guess early spring is the one?

oMan
February 6, 2014 12:52 am

Very useful. Not a strident takedown; not even a takedown; just a great job of putting this work in context. It’s too bad the authors had to fire up the spin machine for the media, but I guess that’s the way of the world now. Does every Ph.D program now include a course in Media Management?

February 6, 2014 12:57 am

I really do not wish to make a comment i just with to be able to make comments on the posts here i have failed to find anywhere to find a place to register
I find this pretty poor
[Reply: You do not need to register. ~ mod.]

rtj1211
February 6, 2014 1:29 am

Any correlation whatever with summer temperatures?? After all, if the peak lake temperature in summer had gone up over the 20 years, presumably, all else being equal, it will take longer to cool down, less ice will form over the winter and therefore there is less to melt in the spring, ergo it melts earlier all things being equal.
Just asking……….

steveta_uk
February 6, 2014 3:01 am

How do they define “partially thawed”
Easy – radar can spot water, and it’s quite a different signature from ice. So if there is water, then it’s partially thawed.
“less ice will form over the winter and therefore there is less to melt in the spring”
Not relevant in this case, as they are only taking about the totally frozen lakes.

Jimbo
February 6, 2014 3:38 am

Manfred says:
February 6, 2014 at 12:20 am
Wonder what missing years 2012 / 2013 would do with figure 1. They were both colder than the previous years, and 2013 Nenana Classic latest melt ever should give another indication.

On the previous related thread some of us commented about the missing recent years. I was also wondering why they chose an area near Barrow.

Frozen Alaska Bucking Global Warming Trend – January 02, 2013
As the rest of the world contends with unusually warm temperatures and scorching drought, Alaska has been bucking the trend since 2000 by reporting some of the coldest winters on record……
http://www.livescience.com/25907-alaska-climate-pdo.html

—————

Temperature Changes in Alaska
The period 1949 to 1975 was substantially colder than the period from 1977 to 2009, however since 1977 little additional warming has occurred in Alaska with the exception of Barrow and a few other locations. The stepwise shift appearing in the temperature data in 1976 corresponds to a phase shift of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation from a negative phase to a positive phase. Synoptic conditions with the positive phase tend to consist of increased southerly flow and warm air advection into Alaska during the winter, resulting in positive temperature anomalies.
http://climate.gi.alaska.edu/ClimTrends/Change/TempChange.html

Jimbo
February 6, 2014 5:06 am
Bob Kutz
February 6, 2014 5:39 am

Excellent work again, Willis.
You manage to do a wonderful job, in my opinion, by looking at the study objectively and giving both positive and negative criticism, all the while keeping it simple enough that even I can understand and follow what you’re doing first time through.
Any chance you’d attempt to publish this as a response to the paper?

Wyguy
February 6, 2014 5:49 am

Of course it’s a warm Winter in Barrow, move those people to Wyoming to get the cold Winter feel.

Bill Thomson
February 6, 2014 5:56 am

If you have ever stood on the bare ice of a frozen lake or river in the early winter as the air temperature is dropping quickly you will likely have experienced a heart-stopping moment as a crack races across the ice almost under your feet. Ice contracts as it cools. The booming and thumping and cracking of the ice is almost magical.
There is a very non-linear relationship between ice thickness and temperature and snow depth, and those cracks are part of the equation. It goes like this:
Suppose that early in the winter there is 5 inches of ice on the lake. The buoyancy of that ice will put the top of the ice about half an inch above where the surface of the water would normally be because about ninety percent of ice is under water.
If there is no snow the ice will freeze relatively quickly because the top surface is exposed to the air. A little bit of snow cover will insulate the ice and prevent it from freezing as quickly. But suppose that it snows a foot on top of that five inches of ice. What will happen? Snow can vary greatly in density but a rough rule of thumb is that a foot of snow equals one inch of ice. So now we have a weight of snow on the five inches of ice that pushes the surface of the ice below the water level. The water comes up through the cracks in the ice and saturates most of the snow by capillary action. Now there is a foot of slush on top of five inches of ice and that thick insulating layer of snow no longer provides much insulation.
The free-flowing water under the ice will circulate up and down in the water column based on its density, which is controlled by its temperature. Ice formation is not as fast on the bottom of a sheet of ice as it is on the top because the least dense water is at +4 degrees C. As the water temperature contacting the bottom of the ice gets down almost to the freezing point those water molecules are trying to head down out of the way so they don’t get caught in the ice.
On the other hand, the water in the snow above the ice has no ability to circulate because the snow restricts it’s movement. As the surface cools it freezes and the thick layer of slush above the ice quickly becomes a very thick layer of ice.

ferdberple
February 6, 2014 6:11 am

Now … why did I say that a p-value of 0.001 is “barely significant”, when the usual level is a p-value of 0.05? Well … because I looked at so many possibilities before finding what I sought. All up, I looked at maybe 40 possibilities before finding this one.
==============
Willis, you’ve nailed the most overlooked failure in climate science. Faulty statistics caused by researchers “cherry picking” their method. They try different methods until they finally find one that supports what they were looking for, and this is the method they publish.
What is also over looked, is that you might have accidentally chosen method 40 on your first try, and never tried the other 39 methods. From this you wold have assumed that your results were much more significant than they were. Chance tells us that any one correlation may have no meaning.
The 39 methods that didn’t correlate, these are telling you something important. They are telling you that the correlation your found with the 40th method was spurious. If every method you try gives a good correlation, then there is likely a true correlation. However, if 39 methods fail and only 1 works, then the correlation is simply accidental.
This is the problem behind the hockey stick and so many other studies in climate science. The researchers search and search for a statistical method that shows correlation, while ignoring the larger set of methods that say there is no correlation. From this they make the faulty conclusion that the correlation they find is real, when in fact the correlation is simply due to chance.

John West
February 6, 2014 6:18 am

While I certainly appreciate the approach and effort Willis has taken, this study falls into the category: Again, “evidence” (spurious as it may or may not be) of warming is not evidence of AGW and certainly not evidence of CAGW. Furthermore the language of the press release intending to covey an unnatural (dramatic, surprising, unprecedented) attribute to the warming is completely unfounded based on the geologic record instead of the snippet of time captured within modern observations.

February 6, 2014 6:19 am

Nice work Willis, I like it. Thanks, by the way, for mentioning your adverse results. I wish everyone would.
Bill Thompson – very informative, lets hope that Surdu et al are equally well informed.

Jim Happ
February 6, 2014 6:36 am

I am not that smart, but what I recall is that the data points need “independence” in some special sense. I don’t see how consecutive time series measurements have that quality. And if they did – couldn’t you just take measurements every second instead of every year and get great correlations? I will try to brush up on my stocastics. In the meantime, I recommend the looking at the 150 years of ice data for some Madison WI lakes at http://www.aos.wisc.edu/~sco/lakes/msnicesum.html.

ferdberple
February 6, 2014 6:39 am

Lance Wallace says:
February 5, 2014 at 11:51 pm
This is almost identical to the value you found from the exponential, so who knows, maybe that’s what Bonferroni did in the first place.
==============
Willis’ method appears closer to the Šidák correction.
Wikipedia has this to say:
Additionally, the results of the two methods are highly similar for conventional significance levels.

Alan Robertson
February 6, 2014 6:50 am

“Prior to starting our analysis, we were expecting to find a decline in ice…”
________________________
“…seek, and Ye shall find…”

michael hart
February 6, 2014 6:50 am

There are good reasons why people traditionally put mercury in thermometers, and not ice. The phase-change is indicating heat flux, not temperature (other than being above about zero degrees Celsius).
As mentioned by posters above, humidity and cloud cover will influence melting rate. Snowfall, rainfall, wind-speed and wind direction, I’m sure people can suggest other factors without the need to wheel in the hot models.

February 6, 2014 7:15 am

The Model results have to be completely discounted. For the satellite data, the first year is Pinatubo, so colder than ‘normal’ with more completely frozen solid lakes. Then nothing happens until 2008. The paper itself depends on just four years. That is insufficient to establish anything.
The PR hype around a nothing finding shows what is wrong with grant seeking Mann wannabes.
There is not much more to be learned.

1 2 3