In the late summer and early fall of 2007, there were a number of alarming media reports about the arctic sea ice melting. Additionally, there were predictions that it would not recover to its previous levels.
But, we have this graph charting the rise and fall of arctic sea ice for the last 365 days, notice that the arctic sea ice is right back where it started at in February 2007.
From the University of Illinois Cryosphere Today:
Image above was edited to fit. Click for a full sized image. A long time series is also available.
And here is the satellite sounder derived image showing sea ice extent as of Saturday, Feb 2nd 2008 (right) compared to Feb 2nd, 1980 (left). The color key shows the concentration of sea ice, with deep purple being the most solid ice and reds, yellows. blues showing areas of thinning ice or seawater/ice mix:
Click for a full sized image. Note that the 1980 photo does not show snow cover (in white) as the technology then wasn’t able to resolve it as it does today.
While there has been a slight reduction in sea ice, NASA indicates in a press release in October 2007 that the main component of change is wind driven flow patterns, not air temperature changes.
I’m wondering; are the polar bears out having fun on the new 2008 ice?
And while we are on the subject of melting sea ice, polar bears, and pictures, I’d like to point out that our Nobelic hero, Al Gore, has been caught not only propagandizing, but also using a copyrighted work without permission.
Astute readers may recall seeing a photo flashed around the world earlier this year of polar bears “stranded” on an ice cube at sea. I won’t show it here but rather please follow this link to the original photographer. See the bottom right photo.
A Canadian blogger, Carole Williams, tells the story behind this picture, which was taken in 2004 just off Alaska by a marine biologist on a Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute project, Amanda Byrd. As the marine biologist (Byrd) points out, the bears were in no danger so close to the coast (they can swim 30 miles).
She just wanted a photograph more of the “wind-sculpted ice” than of the bears. Byrd writes:
“[You] have to keep in mind that the bears aren’t in danger at all. It was, if you will, their playground for 15 minutes. You know what I mean? This is a perfect picture for climate change, in a way, because you have the impression they are in the middle of the ocean and they are going to die with a coke in their hands. But they were not that far from the coast, and it was possible for them to swim.”
The image was copied from the ships computer (where Byrd had downloaded the camera flash memory stick to) by another member of the shipboard research crew and passed on to Environment Canada. Then it was eagerly adopted by many as an example of the fate that awaits the polar bears – including Al Gore, who used the picture as huge projected backdrop in one of his highly lucrative lectures.
Gore said:
“Their habitat is melting,” “beautiful animals, literally being forced off the planet.”
Audience: [gasp!]
Yes, it melts every summer.
Read all the details of the story behind the photo, here and here. It seems that a lawsuit is brewing and Canada has some pretty hefty copyright laws.
In the meantime, there’s a big push in the US to “save the polar bears”. The LA Times writes today:
“The Bush administration is nearing a decision that would officially acknowledge the environmental damage of global warming, and name its first potential victim: the polar bear.”
Sure I want to protect wildlife just as much as the next person, but this is just getting to be all about spin and little about facts. Write your congressman and senator and let them know the true story. Let’s give the folks in Alaska (who should know) some credit for injecting some reason into the issue.
UPDATE – The “spike” has a well written story about the Polar Bear issue, along with some statistics.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
To be fair in light of your last post;
You now show us a single graph of a single parameter measured for a single year, a single satellite photo taken at a single point in time, a single example of irresponsible media using a single photograph of a single bear, then you redicule a single person and conclude that it’s unreasonable to think there might be a long-term trend with Arctic sea loss, or threats for polar bears. Then on this line of evidence you infer that it’s just silly for our President to be thinking about energy-policy changes based on all the evidence presented to him? Hopefully his advisors are reading more than just BLogg-posts!
Just trying to figure this out.
Jd
REPLY: Hi JD, thanks for the comment. I figured you’d be one of the first to jump in. The story is about the fact that the media (and some groups) did exactly what you accuse me of: “show us a single graph of a single parameter measured for a single year, a single satellite photo taken at a single point in time”. That’s EXACTLY what the media did this year in many stories this past summer about melting ice in the arctic. Here is a story from Sept 2007 from MSNBC showing just such a single instance
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9527485/ (note they don’t say what month the 1979 photo is from, but do for the 2007 photo, for all we know, they could be summer and winter side by side) But to be fair, and in deference to your concerns, I’ve added my own side by side comparison sat sounder images for Feb 2nd, 1980 and Feb 2nd 2008 to the post along with a link to the entire time series.
For my part, I think the PDO (Pacific Decadal Oscillation) is one of the biggest drivers of changes we are seeing. NASA itself points out this year that changes in the arctic are more related to flow patterns than temperature changes.
The collapse of the Ross ice shelf is another example of a single event touted in the media with satellite images that comes to mind. But that may be linked to nearby volcanism.
True, the original post contains only a single example of irresponsible media, but many other can be cited, like the one from MSNBC, and such as the recent 60 minutes special, which I touched on here, or the National Geographic specials along the same lines. Plus many other “me too” copied AP and Reuters stories.
What I’m ridiculing (albeit tongue in cheek) is Gore’s tactic of tugging on the public heartstrings by elevating an animal to an icon, where perhaps the elevation isn’t justified by all the science involved.
“you infer that it’s just silly for our President to be thinking about energy-policy changes”
I’m not sure how you got that idea, since the word “energy” does not appear in my original post. Surely you know by now that I actually think energy independence is a very good idea (witness my own solar projects). But I do think it’s a bad idea to rush to judgment (as seems to be the case with pressure for a USFWS polar bear listing) when the current evidence says otherwise. Read the article from the Alaskan biologist which is the last link int he original post to see what I’m talking about. – Anthony
Excellent information.
A few questions for the AGW crowd:
• Why was a very large island in the North Atlantic Ocean, given the name “Greenland” rather than “Whiteland”?
• I wander if it might have had anything to do with the color of it at the time?
• Or the color of even part of it, like the fiords?
• And if those fiords were green at the time, why were they?
• Could it possibly be that the very thick layer of ice overlaying them melted?
• And might that have been caused by the prevailing temperatures at that time?
• My goodness they must have had a heck of a lot of global warming to have melted that much glacier ice?
• and with that amount of warming, the polar bears, did they all perish and subsequently come back again, from the dead?
• Is there a lot of evidence of the great amount of worldwide flooding that must have occurred when much of that ice cap of that huge island melted?
• Or even any evidence?
• Is it true that the world’s climate has always been changing and will always continue to be changing?
• Is it true that some leading researchers (McKittrick et al) have discovered that much of the temperature data used by the IPCC to model world temperature changes was found to be seriously flawed and as such has put into question the basic foundation of the theory of temperature change/ climate change on which the Kyoto accord was founded upon?
• Is it true that over one hundred eminent climate scientists signed an open letter to His Excellency Ban Ki-Moon, Secretary General of the United Nations on Dec 13, 2007, wherein they give a very strong rationalization of why IPCC should give up the futile attempts to combat climate change, as it is in their opinion impossible to stop?
The Canadian Arctic is having a “normal” cold as hell winter where for the past three months temperatures have been close if not slightly below normal temperatures being minus 25 to minus 50 deg C, Most certainly ice does not melt at those conditions yet we hear AGW fear mongers continue to daily chirp about the Arctic ice melting and that the polar bears are going to perish (drown). The biggest problem in the possibility of the bears drowning is that they will have difficulty finding any free water to drown in. In reality there currently is more danger of them freezing to death and or from starvation due to the absence of any open water. Why are Al Gore and his AGW friends not spending much of this winter seeing first hand in the Arctic what is happening, such as the phenomena or Arctic ice melting on a minus 50 deg day. Surely if he is genuinely concerned to the extent that he claims, he would go to “Ground Zero” and see the facts of the matter for himself, it wouod really be character building for him.
From what I have read, it is not the distribution of winter ice, but the extent of the summer ice that is the greater concern. A better comparison would be August 2007 to August 2008.
Another useful piece of information to know would be the thickness of the winter ice in various locations. How does that compare year after year? Will there be enough of it to stick around in large enough masses so as to provide the necessary summer habitat for the bears?
REPLY: I agree that a measure of thickness would be useful. There is a measure of density in the satellite sounder images. By that measure it appears that 2008 arctic sea primary ice over the north pole is a bit more dense than in 1980. But thats just an eyeball view.
The summer ice extent changes are related to what NASA has discovered about winds affecting the arctic ice:
Of course, during the winter. with ice masses being much larger and contiguousmore , they don’t get influenced by the wind as much.
I’ve been following the Al Gore photo follies.
Erle Stanley Garner would have called it “The Case of the Purloined Picture”.
Unsurprisingly, it gets little play in the mainstream press.
The big question in terms of polar temperatures is at the other end of the planet: Why is it that Antarctica, despite having the same level of CO2 as the rest of the “globe”, shows no sign of global warming, and in fact in its center, furthest away from the ocean, has been cooling for decades?
The answer seems to be here, and although it has to do with anthropogenic causes, has nothing to do with CO2:
http://climatesci.org/2007/06/19/a-new-paper-that-highlights-the-first-order-radiative-forcing-of-black-carbon-deposition/
I spent three months above the arctic circle in the summer of 1955 while in the Navy. We had three months to get in there, and get out.
Reason? Ice melts in the summer, and refreezes in the winter. DUH!
Anthony,
You’re making a good point. Forgive “my speed” in understanding the approach.
Regarding the heart-strings dynamic; there is a much larger problem that relates to this digital age. That is, such tactics are actually required to make the general population pay attention. Sad but true? Worthy of looking into as discussion perhaps.
I’m not sure what biologist reference you’re making; where is that link found?
As a side-note; understand how difficult it is to be a field-biologist trying to convince upper-ranks (especially in USFWS) that something needs more attention. A few years ago while working on a project, I was informed by USFWS biologists that the Bush Administration closed down the USFWS Library at the Branch Office in California so that the biologists couldn’t get to scientific literature/references without formally requesting them from superiors (who were given authority to deny requests without explanation). Not good science-policy from the top-down. I can appreciate what effort, and what level of proof is needed for “official” Administration acknowlegment of what a team of USFWS field biologists suggest.
Regarding the energy policy comment, I jumped the gun somewhat. You’re right, the Administration acknowledging AGW and polar bears does not translate directly to energy policy decisions. I should have read that more carefully.
Your support of sustainable technology and energy independance is appreciated.
Jd
REPLY: Thanks, I just added some additional info to the original post in deference to your concerns. the link you seek is at very bottom of the original post, look for the “folks in Alaska” -Anthony
The lower part of the graph shows, it says, “Anomaly from 1979-2000 mean” or something like that.
I would expect it to swing above and below zero.
You mean sometimes it IS the motion of the ocean?
Or was that go with the floe?
REPLY: [groan]
[sorry, comments deleted until apology issued on statements made regarding jihad]
It seems that I read that the population of the polar bear has increased from 5000 in 1950 to 25000 in 2000 I am not sure of the exact numbers but with that kind of increase there seems to be no problem with the bears being endangered.
JD there is no excuse for a field biologist to exagerate conditions to try to get some ones attention. The data genetated in the field is used by many more scientist and policy makers that just the “upper ranks” for that reason the data must be as accurate as possible. It is also possible that they may be recieving other data than what you are provicing.
as a side if your data is proven to be unreliable in future because of exagaration to get attention………. We are having this problem now in the AGW debate. To much data manipulated and smoothed and the raw data being withdrawn from access.
It isn’t a nice thing.
My 2 Cents.
Bill
Alrighty, I apologize for my comments regarding your approaches on the assessment of the surface stations.
c
It seems that I read that the population of the polar bear has increased from 5000 in 1950 to 25000 in 2000 I am not sure of the exact numbers but with that kind of increase there seems to be no problem with the bears being endangered.
What we have here is a population explosion crisis. Immediate action imperative.
Excellent information. Does Al Gore know about this?
Excellent information. Does Al Gore know about this?
He has a “need to not know”.
Besides, there will be no film at 11.
Anthony, did you get my email? If you did not, please email me back (or post here) and let me know and I will resend it. Looking forward to your reply.
REPLY: No I did not, I have my spam filters turned on extra high these days because some enterprising folks have signed me up to just about every environmental newsletter on the planet in an effort to sway my thinking. Of course “unsubscribe” doesn’t work for all of these.
It is probably worth noting that the temps are at 30 years lows almost everywhere except Europe. You can see that in the snow/ice cover images as well (e.g. no ice in the Baltic Sea). This probably explains why the Europeans are much more concerned about GW than everyone else.
I for one welcome the newness of the ice in the artic and hope we continue “recycling” in this way.
I speak from experience that “old ice” does some dreadful things to the flavor of scotch.
Just a chip off the old block.
Bill,
I’m not sure what exaggeration you refer to, nor is it clear as to who you claim is doing the exaggeration (principal field biologists, armchair scientists, popular media, Al Gore, USFWS, “environmentalists”, Fox News, Eskimos or maybe?). Personally, I’ve not read the original peer-reviewed scientific papers regarding the Ice-Bear issue (nor has anyone else this biologist personally knows).
In my mind this review of original work is pre-requisite in basically understanding the issue and in judging how it’s being reported in popular media. Or we could just take someone’s else’s word for it (e.g., Al Gore, Rush, Bush, etc.), or loudly voice personal opinion.
Conversely perhaps, we could place some trust in a group of professional, dedicated scientists working in the hopefully transparent realm of peer-reviewed publication (Anthony has contributed an excellent example of how review contributes to accuracy of the data). Of the options just mentioned, if that’s all the choice given, I know who I’d pay attention to regarding AGW and polar bears.
My comments regarding challenges of being a field biologist working with beauracrats/politicians are based on almost 20 years of professional experience…no exaggerations necessary there my friend; trust me. All you have to do is present good data that are unpopular and you too are guaranteed the pleasure of being accused of exaggeration! That’s no exaggeration! Its’ pretty simple really; it’s how politics work..not science though. Like a friend of mine once said, “if you want to know what a fart- in-church feels like, bring up an ecological problem for discussion at your next cocktail party”.
The true beauty of science is in its systematic method of approach, obtaining replicated, repeatable and statistically defensible data, making realistic assumptions, drawing logical conclusions and importantly, readjusting the hypothesis based on results (lets not forget peer review).
If that’s what the Polar Bear field biologists are doing we should defer to them and their studies. If that’s not what they are doing..shame on them; but rest assured, like broken thermomters, their presence will be revealed.
Again though, I’ve not read the original biological studies, nor have I seen the original USFWS analysis/conclusions. Also, not having yet read the analysis of the President’s advisory committee, my conclusion is a resounding “who am I to judge the matter of polar bear truths?” Logical answer: I’m nobody, really.
What Al Gore, Brad Pitt, The Bush Administration, A.M. Radio hosts or other “higher-ups” do with data/reports is a matter quite outside the realm of science. Question them all of course (especially the scientists), but don’t throw the data out along with all the distracting noise.
Thanks again for the links Anthony. By the way, the Carbon-Cycle-Ocean threads were very interesting, even though I’m still trying to understand a good portion of it!
Jd
I read your NASA winds article, and yes, that study does seem to support that arctic winds play a role in the melting of the summer ice. But here is more information from the same article:
“The scientists observed less perennial ice coverage in March 2007 than ever before, with the thick ice confined to the Arctic Ocean north of Canada. Consequently, the Arctic Ocean was dominated by thinner seasonal ice that melts faster. This ice is more easily compressed and responds more quickly to being pushed out of the Arctic by winds. Those thinner seasonal ice conditions facilitated the ice loss, leading to this year’s record low amount of total Arctic sea ice.”
So, why was there less perennial ice coverage in March 2007 than ever before? And if our present February 2008 coverage levels are the same as last year, well, I wouldn’t really call that an optimistic report.
REPLY: Hi Jeremy, This paper from Dr. Roger Pielke may help you understand what is going on a little better.
http://climatesci.colorado.edu/publications/pdf/R-256.pdf
Here is an excerpt:
Regarding Pielke’s paper that is linked, is this a peer-reviewed publication? I for one am somewhat intimidated by the technical details, I see the excerpted conclusion, yet am concerned that they are using “data” in the singular tense. This could be viewed as a silly detail, but that’s one of the things resolved by peer review.
Jd
REPLY: yes it was published in peer reviewed journal, Climate Dynamics, 22, 591-595 DOI10.1007/s00382-004-0401-5.
see reference on the periodical here: http://www.springerlink.com/content/0930-7575
Perhaps this will help though I am not a scientist and never claimed to be, I do read. This article would seem to indicate that there might be some discrepancy some where.
———————————————————-
“The Endangered Species Act, for all of its flaws, was written to protect species that are actually endangered in light of low population numbers or a steep, rapid present decline based on the best available data–not to protect species prospectively–that is, if x, y, and z happen, they might go into decline at some time far in the future.
“Based on this standard, there is no way the polar bear should be listed–their numbers are at a high mark for the twentieth century and perhaps in history, having risen from around 5,000 at the middle of the century to more than 22,000 today. While a couple of polar bear populations do seem to be shrinking, most populations are stable or increasing and the ones in decline are in areas where cooling is actually occurring.
“This is just a transparent attempt by radical environmentalists to use what is widely acknowledged as the most powerful environmental law in the land, to slow or halt continued economic development, not just in Alaska but in the mainland U.S.–which has been their ultimate goal for many years.
“The purported threat to the photogenic polar bear is their golden opportunity to turn out the lights on industrial civilization and individual choice in the marketplace.”
H. Sterling Burnett
Senior Fellow
National Center for Policy Analysis
sterling.burnett@ncpa.org
972/386-6272
———————————————————-
I hope that the truth might be found
Bill