In the thread where we have examined the visual discrepancies in sea ice report that concerned a number of people, William Chapman of the University of Illinois Champaign/Urbana joined in the discussion today. Mr. Chapman is the man responsible for maintaining the popular Cryosphere Today website, which shows sea ice extent data and visuals for both the Arctic and Antarctic. I asked him a some questions about the website and he graciously responded within the hour.
I asked about the new color scheme and map that had been recently implemented:
Q: What prompted the color scheme change in recent days?
A: I added three new color schemes about 40 days ago (July 11; is that ‘recent’?). I was hoping for more detail in the images “from the satellite perspective” in the images shown on the main page. The AMSR-E data provide more spatial resolution so I switched data sources and color schemes for those home page images. IMPORTANT: The data used for all other timeseries and comparison graphics have stayed the same (SSMI) obviously, to avoid any issues with data inhomogeneity in time. The AMSR-E data source is only used for the high resolution Northern Hemisphere graphics on the main page. I hope to convert the Southern Hemisphere as well over the next month. The AMSR-E is a relatively new platform, so maybe after it has been around for 10-15 years or so, and has a proven track-record, we can switch the timeseries and other data over entirely to that platform. I have included links to the old SSMI images on the main page for those who prefer them or want to compare current conditions to historic conditions (prior to the AMSR-E launch).
The new maps are graphically better, in my opinion, than the older presentation.
But the real surprise came when I asked him about a comment from Al Gore that had been prominently displayed on the Cryosphere today web page for several months. I’ve seen several comments about this appearing to illustrate a potential bias at CT. It went like this:
You’ve heard Al Gore say “The Earth has a fever”? It may also have major tooth decay.
Here is how Mr. Chapman responded:
Q: Why do you have a quote from a politician (Al Gore) on a web page presenting science? This is a question many people have raised.
A: [ I ] didn’t realize it was a concern for many people. All references to Al Gore have been removed.
Kudos to Mr. Chapman for his willingness to consider the issue, and for acting quickly when it was pointed out. You can read the original comment here
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Dave Andrews wrote: “In fact the earlier records seem to indicate that there were considerable changes over time, its just that we, today like those at the time, are unable to determine how great those changes were.”
This was in reference to an earlier poster who wrote that the 20s and 30s saw similar ice melts in the Arctic.
The problem is that very stable long term ice structures are melting off and disappearing. The underwater ice ridges have mostly disappeared. Most troubling is the loss of the extremely stable ice shelves in the Canadian Arctic archipelago. The Ward ice shelf has been around for close to 4000 years, and it is breaking up. In fact, these ice shelves have lost 90% of their ice in the last century, according to this article.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/04/080415205350.htm
The amount of Arctic ice is falling, and in geologic timeframes, very quickly.
Paul,
Assuming that the ice was melted in place, and not pushed around as NASA has posted, would you please post the Heat required to melt the ice in 2007 vs 2008?
I would hazard that 2008 is a much lower number than 2007 given the nature of the ice in each case since 2007 saw a commensurate areal coverage of much thicker and older ice removed than 2008’s first year ice.
Hey, thanks Werner Weber for mentioning albedo. I’m sitting here quietly reading saying to myself where did all the albedo guys go. All last year, all I heard was albedo this, and albedo that. I mean, at least talk about it, so I know why it doesn’t matter any more.
Here’s another thing I’m wondering about. At the beginning of the season I distinctly remember experts gathering together to tell us this year was most likely going to all, or mostly melt, because there was so much thin ice. It didn’t. So now I’m wondering about thin ice. How much does it really matter. I imagine there was thin ice before in the history of the ice pack when ice was at a minimal phase. Somehow it grew back. Now it’s thin again. There seems to be an implication from the volume-is-all-that-matters guys next years melt will take this year’s thin ice away. Do we really know that? Won’t thin ice get thicker? If we continue to have years like this won’t it just get thicker, and thicker, slowly but surely year after year?
Also there was that big chunk of ice that disappeared in the storm of early August. What if next year we don’t have one of those?
Which means it WASN’T there before 4000 years ago. So why is it an emergency now when it wasn’t then? Saying that ice volume has decreased in the last 50 or 100 years is really meaningless. We need to speak of geologic time scales, not human generational time scales.
The real measure of the melt is the volume, not the surface area.
Yes, volume does “count”, but area is far more important because that is what determines albedo.
The real measure of the melt is the volume, not the surface area.
Yes, volume does “count”, but area is far more important because that is what determines albedo.
The combination of strong +PDO and +AMO will naturally result in warmer temperatures and less ice in the Arctic. The AMO went positive in 1995, and what do you know, Arctic ice has been decreasing since then. However, the PDO has recently gone negative and the AMO is expected follow suit at some point…
Also, the Arctic Oscillation went warm in 1989. NASA says it may be reversing to cool now, and that’s 20 years earlier than expected.
We must also not forget the “dirty snow” factor. Depending on who you are listening to from 20% to 90% of the Arctic melt is due to that. And the problem will continue for the next three or so decades, at which point China and India will be affluent enough to give a good goddamn about their air quality (same as the west did, and for the same reasons).
At that point, the dirty snow issue will start disappearing and the Arctic ice will revert to normal. But don’t expect that until the particulates stop their darkening and melting act.
Paul K,
I’m not sure what you mean by me “not accepting US Navy records” when none were offered in the post I responded to.
Navy records like this? http://www.athropolis.com/news/submarines.htm (Us and British subs surfacing at the North Pole, or the three Navy subs that surfaced in an ice free North Pole in 1987 http://thepartisanpatriot.com/forums/showthread.php?t=5606, or in 1959 (USS Skate).
Nov. 2, 1922 edition of The Washington Post reads: “Arctic Ocean Getting Warm; Seals Vanish and Icebergs Melt.” article from 1922. I think Anthony has a copy of the article posted here in the past. It makes the claim that the scientists feared that the Arctic (all of it) would soon be ice free and that the Northwest Passage would be open year round.
Sounds to me like this is a cyclic thing and that ice thickness in the Arctic waxes and wanes based on natural cycles.
I see Werner Weber has addressed the albedo issue.
Meh. Going around rooting out marginally funny Al Gore quotes (when so many are so very less than funny) from websites strikes me as perilously close to the stormtrooper tactics of the other side. Really, don’t go there. Better to ask for an “equal time” kind of quote than suggest even a whiff of censorship.
The Australian seems to be gradually taking a more skeptical view
Today Jennifer Mahorasy “Case of the warm and fuzzy” Inquirer page 25 totally debunks models and IPCC with real data.
On Arctic ice melt, there appears to be a few plausible theories, two of which have been mentioned numerous times.
1) Unusual wind patterns and oceanic currents
2) soot
However, a third less discussed mechanism is simply……the sun.
http://www.arm.gov/science/research/pdf/R00143.pdf
Yet, the arm waiving on increasing CO2 levels continues. Recently Hansen spoke as if it was a foregone conclusion that increased levels of CO2 are the main cause for the recent melt.
Re Chapman note carefully that possibly NH Re-freeze has started (see Hudson bay, Bering, August 20-22
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/ so time to duck for cover… LOL
You think Jennifer Mahorasy is the one to ‘totally debunk’ the IPCC? Has she got anything new to say, or is she still just lifting graphs from Roy Spencer’s site (Loehle 2007, for example – if you think that’s debunking then, well, hmm…)?
http://www.jennifermarohasy.com/
Yawn.
Paul K (13:52:04)
‘That post was safely written last winter, but now that ice is gone, and the bears are in trouble. How about a headline for this story?’
Here is a head line for you
Federal Polar Bear Research Critically Flawed, Argue Forecasting Experts in INFORMS Journal
“These studies are meant to inform the US Fish and Wildlife Service about listing the polar bear as endangered. After careful examination, my co-authors and I were unable to find any references to works providing evidence that the forecasting methods used in the reports had been previously validated. In essence, they give no scientific basis for deciding one way or the other about the polar bear.”
http://www.informs.org/article.php?id=1383
A bit OT, but this article also attributes the sun to European warming.
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2008/2008GL034228.shtml
Abstract
The rapid temperature increase of 1°C over mainland Europe since 1980 is considerably larger than the temperature rise expected from anthropogenic greenhouse gas increases. Here we present aerosol optical depth measurements from six specific locations and surface irradiance measurements from a large number of radiation sites in Northern Germany and Switzerland. The measurements show a decline in aerosol concentration of up to 60%, which have led to a statistically significant increase of solar irradiance under cloud-free skies since the 1980s. The measurements confirm solar brightening and show that the direct aerosol effect had an approximately five times larger impact on climate forcing than the indirect aerosol and other cloud effects. The overall aerosol and cloud induced surface climate forcing is ∼+1 W m−2 dec−1 and has most probably strongly contributed to the recent rapid warming in Europe.
The comment geo made about censorship points out the glaring difference between skeptical sites like this, and alarmist sites like RealClimate, Tamino, Eli Rabett, etc.
This site allows contrary points of view — whereas the alarmist sites promptly delete inconvenient comments by those who don’t toe their AGW/climate catastrophe line. And since RealClimate is run by Gavin Schmidt on the taxpayer’s dime, I don’t think I’m out of line by calling it censorship [if I’m wrong about this, let’s have an independent audit of Mr. Schmidt].
Personally, I enjoy having an alarmist foil to debate. Sometimes the alarmists can make a valid point, and it alters my view a little. But most often, they allow me to think about, and formulate my responses to their opinions so when those opinions crop up again, I’m prepared to refute them. When they’re false, of course. Which is much more often than not.
There is a reason the alarmist sites do not permit inconvenient facts to be posted: the AGW/climate catastrophe hypothesis has been repeatedly falsified, and refusing to allow that information to be disseminated is their only hope of remaining credible for the time being. But as we are seeing, facts have a way of being disseminated.
So please, Paul K, continue debating. It keeps us AGW/climate catastrophe skeptics on our toes.
Several good points were made by others following your last post, beginning with Austin’s @ur momisugly 15:30:45 [posted only 53 seconds after your last comment]. Please don’t hide out. I would be interested in reading your response to the points subsequent posters raised in response to your original comments.
[snip–does not add to conversation and is nothing more than a personal attack~charles the moderator]…and watch the planet get cooler….
Pixel counting: isn’t it a well-developed set of algorithms to transform a flat map projection like the these polar pictures into an equal area projection (stretching the pixels across many pixels as needed). I haven’t touched an ESRI product in awhile but I would think this would be trivial if you had a few geographic reference points defined on the photo. Am I missing something here?
“[snip–does not add to conversation and is nothing more than a personal attack~charles the moderator]…”
Wow Charles, pretty harsh dontcha think? I gotta say I’m not real appreciative of your moderating style.
Paul, here’s some ice data for you to chill out with: http://img156.imageshack.us/img156/636/seaiceextentez1.jpg
Reply: You are the first person to complain about my style rather than apologize for your post. So considering how tight a rope I have to walk, my percentage is pretty good. You may be upset because you are in the skeptic camp and this is regarded by many as a skeptic blog, but as a moderator I try and take as even a hand as I can, a poster’s point of view is irrelevant. Personal attacks, no matter how cute, or how appropriate you feel it was, are prohibited.~charles the moderator
OK, so Paul K would have us believe that the ice melt is disasterous as almost as bad as 2007. But… wait a sec. I read that 2007 was an unmitigated and unprecedented disaster because it was melting thick multi-year ice and the ’08 ice cover would soon be ice free because it’s only first year ice.
And yet… 2008’s egshell thin ice layer hasn’t melted as much as in ’07 *despite* being eggshell thin, which says, really, that the conditions that cause the melt of ’07 weren’t anywhere near as strong for ’08. Assuming of course that the claim of multi-year ice has even the slightest actual meaning (lots of stuff sounds like it makes sense but either doesn’t when you look at it closely or was specious nonsense and supposition to start with.)
So much for the ’08 prediction of being worse than ’07. In my book ’08 has made a stunning comeback. Go eggshell, go!
while some talk about sea ice area and others sea ice volumn, what doesn’t get talked about is the water underneath.
Sea ice slows down the cooling of the water underneath it and the thicker it is the less cooling the sea water underneath it is subjected to. Open sea water cools much faster than ice covered sea water.
The polar waters would seem to be the major source of oceanic cooling but all we ever hear about is how open sea water contributes to global warming when it would appear that sea ice contributes much more to warming than open water.
Open water absorbs more energy than sea icecovered water for 2 to 3 months of the year. The rest of the 9-10 months it radiates more energy than the sea ice covered water. The thinner the ice the more energy is radiated spaceward for most of the year. It would seem that the loss of ice cover in 2007 caused a lot of sea water cooling. The loss in 2008 will cause the arctic seas to lose even more energy.
When talking about the cooling effect of the polar seas we need to look not just at the thickness of the ice and it’s temperature, we need to include the vast volumn of water and it’s temperature.
[…] Jon Jewett commenting in Watts Up With That? 21 August, 2008 More On Cognitive Dissonance “The End Of The World Is/Is Not Nigh!” Philip […]
[…] Jon Jewett commenting in Watts Up With That? 21 August, 2008 More On Cognitive Dissonance “The End Of The World Is/Is Not Nigh!” Philip […]
Modeling is intended to be GIGO, but it should not be abused. In Canada, we have a healthy polar bear population that has just gone on a Protected Species list; what is that about? This is clear proof the NGOs and EPA do not understand science. Two polar bear populations on Baffin are decreasing in number, but this is a region of the arctic that is cooling not warming. Polars are stable or increasing! Polar bears are a variety of brown bear and probably will do very well when and if it warms, but not in competition with brownies simply because of their colour. The species, however, has survived numerous ice ages before this, their KODAK moment, arrived. Camouflage as brownies will get them through.
However, it is certainly not about the bears. This is about abstract computer modeling being falsely elevated to the level of science and then presented as if it were science. Modeling produces objective computer generated conclusions based upon input assumptions and processing. In order for models to be approximately predictive, the assumptions must be realistic and work backward as well as forward. In most complex cases, modeling is GIGO. GIGO is their real value; eliminating hypothetical possibilities.
Politics operates on GIGO propaganda – secondary causation not on first principles. Science or first principles do not affect government decisions in democracies. When a politically correct model gives the politicians an advantage to manipulate politically correct voters in an election year, democracy becomes irrelevant.
Bear protection is all about a mass movement that intends to destroy global prosperity by crowd control in the brave new world. NIMBY is the unintentional foremost philosophy of the enemies of our prosperity but by putting bears on an endangered list when they are not endangered is ‘new speak’, mind-control, and secondary reasoning all wrapped up in one, and it intrusive into someone else’s (Nunavut’s) back yard to boot. Science should not be secondary to modeling under any serious circumstances because there is too great a likelihood of missed assumptions and empty logic rendering the conclusion dead wrong.
As asked above, are you ignoring the Antarctic in your focus on sea ice variation?
Anthony, it’s nice that the folks at CT pay attention to you. I guess they’ll be reading this thread, so I’ll report here one nit about their site I reported to them earlier this year that they ignored. I guess that makes this an off-topic post, sorry.
At http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/ when I click on the Arctic map on the gray that is the Canadian Archipelago, I’m taken to a bogus link. The problem is in one of the HTML area commands – both the alt (Hudson Bay) and href (http) parameters are wrong. The fix may be to delete that line, there is another one that looks like it would cover the archipelago just fine.