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.
Looking at Cryospheres graphic, last year at this time ice area leveled off. Now today there is a very slight uptick, which is being registered in most of the artic seas. Could the same thing be about to happen this year? Meltback basically done? We’ll see.
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/current.365.jpg
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/sea.ice.anomaly.timeseries.jpg
MattN (19:52:05) :
“Wow Charles, pretty harsh dontcha think? I gotta say I’m not real appreciative of your moderating style.”
That’s okay – I suspect one reason this blog has so many readers is because of the just-tight-enough rein of the moderators.
Then again, my posts haven’t been edited, but I generally try to add to the discussion, research what I have to say (not this time), and avoid ad hominem attacks.
Nice graph, though.
Fran Manns, Toronto (20:36:08) :
Numerous ice ages – that’s what I thought, but was very surprised to learn they evolved in the last 200,000 years, just a couple ice ages. Teeth have changed quite a bit in just the last 10,000. They’ve also survived the Medieval, Roman, and other warm periods without EPA protection.
See http://www.polarbearsinternational.org/bear-facts/polar-bear-evolution/
That they’ve changed so much recently suggests that they can likely evolve rapidly now and may be one of the most adaptable mammals faced with climate change of any direction.
“I hope, for mankind’s sake, and the sake of our planet, that the skeptics are right, and the Arctic ice quickly mends this winter and next year. Our future depends on the skeptics being right…”
That seems to be a rather alarmist statement. I do not quite see how the Fate of Mankind depends on Arctic sea ice extent (or volume). I do know that the fate of polar bears does not. Today the polar bear population is 3 times what it was in 1965-1973. If there has been a decline in Arctic sea ice over that period, it either did not effect polar bears or it benefited them, since there are so many more of them today.
Polar bears are wide-ranging animals. It has not been demonstrated that distinct subpopulations even exist, because the animals travel exceedingly great distances to forage and breed. Loss of edge ice is no impediment to such vagabond creatures. They simply go with the floe.
[Note to Anthony: how many points did I score with “go with the floe”? Please use standard Olympic judging guidelines.]
“DR (18:19:14) :
A bit OT, but this article also attributes the sun to European warming.
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2008/2008GL034228.shtml”
I hope it actually attributes European warming to the sun rather than the other way around, but that is by-the-by.
Idiot non-scientist from London here with a question (which I will pose after a few observations).
I thought we were meant to be worried about “global” warming.
The chilly bit at the top might be melting a bit more than it has in some other years, the chilly bit at the bottom might be getting a bit chillier than it has been in some other years and small children in England are very confused about the whole concept of summer because it has been so cold and wet (OK, lets be fair, we had two hot days in mid July).
As I understand it, the planet is meant to be on the cusp of catastrophe. A few more years of driving my car and using a butane-fuelled lighter for my ciggies will result in irreversible warming of the whole planet resulting in universal misery.
I think I understand the concept: every molecule of CO2 in the atmosphere is a little mirror which reflects heat back to the ground which bounces it back to the mirror which reflects it back to the ground and so on. The more little mirrors there are the more hotness thingies are reflected to the ground and back again. That much is perfectly logical. The crucial question is whether the concept is correct or just a natty theory.
There is only one way to test any theory and that is to see whether what actually happens is in accordance with the theory. If it is, the theory might be correct (but it might not because the correlation might be coincidental). If it is not, the theory is definitely incorrect.
My question is in three parts and it is this: (i) is melting in the chilly bit at the top consistent with the theory, (ii) is extra chilliness in the chilly bit at the bottom consistent with the theory and (iii) is what is happening between the top and the bottom consistent with the theory?
It seems to the ignoramus that is me, that looking at (i) alone tells us absolutely nothing.
But then I’m no scientist, I don’t even know why a cricket ball swings more in humid conditions than in dry air … oh, hang on, nor do scientists.
I have raised the cricket ball issue before and I did so for a reason. Science can only explain what it can explain. A phenomenon which is witnessed but which cannot be explained by science does not disappear, it is still there. The answer a scientist gives always depends on the question he is asked to answer.
Asked the question: “does a cricket ball swing more in humid air than in dry air?” all known tests and principles will deliver a clear negative answer. There you have it, science has proved that a cricket does not swing more when it is humid. But that answer is false, it is false because in fact a cricket ball does swing more when it is humid and it is wrong because he was asked the wrong question.
Asked the question: “why does a cricket ball swing more in humid air than in dry air?” the answer is “we cannot explain it”. The same tests are administered and the same principles are applied, by asking the right question we get a radically different answer.
I suggest that the proper starting point is not the CO2 mirror theory but reality. What is actually happening? Is the planet actually warming? Not just a bit at the top, a bit at the bottom or a bit somewhere in the middle, but the planet as a whole, is it actually warming? If it is, we then need to ask whether the CO2 mirror theory is the explanation. If it is not we can abandon that theory and spend our time usefully, perhaps playing cricket.
One reason why I find this site so interesting is that it concentrates on examining the evidence rather than poncing about with the theory.
Have a nice weekend everyone.
Mike Dubrasich (22:27:31) “They simply go with the floe.”
You impressed hell outta me. Hall of Fame for Mike.
We have about 30 years of satellite data, another 30 years or so of spotty submarine records, and another 75 to 100 years of logs from ships that managed to get into Arctic WATERS. And on this paucity of information, about an environment that is at least 10,000 years old, we are trying to say this or that is not a natural state.
Satellites give us pretty good systematic information on Arctic ice area. Submarines give us spotty information on ice area and thickness. They just happen to make readings on various transects, not a basin-wide systematic survey. Ships logs and explorers’ stories tell us little about anything outside the immediate area of observation, Everything prior to the satellite data is, effectively, spotty at best and anecdotal at worst.
What hard evidence do we have that the Arctic Ocean has been continuously covered in ice 10 or 15 metres (or more) thick, for thousands of years? A very few samples collected in a generally haphazard fashion over about 0.5% of the age of an ecosystem.
Paul K,
There are times that your posts facilitate useful reflection and often your posts contain reliable information. Yet, I often do not agree with your conclusion. One such case is your statement: “Our future depends on the skeptics being right, and my analysis indicates they don’t have such a good record at being correct.” This claim fascinates me because it was the abject failure of the “AGW camp” to be correct that turned me from being an acceptor of the AGW argument to being a Skeptic. To be sure, skeptics have a little advantage in the debate because as skeptics, they do not have to be right in their own theory; they just need to show that the other side is or could be wrong. Also, either side could point to ridiculous claims of the opponent’s fringe to discredit the other side’s accuracy. Therefore, in discussing accuracy, I try to stick to what I perceive as mainstream views in both sides. Just to list a few things that the AGW has gotten wrong: the hockey stick, which year was the hottest in the United States, increasing hurricane intensity, droughts, Pacific islands being erased by increasing sea levels, forecasts of increasing temperatures from twenty years ago, (earlier) models that forecasted higher Antarctica temperatures. Just a few things that skeptics have gotten right: global average temperature decreasing upon the flip of the PDO, increasing tornado activity upon the arrival of a strong La Nina, ability of Arctic ice to rebound over the winter, and the list goes on. There are a few items which it is unclear as to which side has a better handle – such as the question of whether atmospheric temperature trends display the fingerprint of AGW. But here is one item regarding accuracy on which I am willing to wager many thousands of dollars: whether the Arctic will be ice-free by 2013. Would you like to take that wager? (If we set 2030 as the year, we may need to put the wagers in trusts for grandchildren. )
Bill Marsh (16:37:14) “Nov. 2, 1922 edition of The Washington Post” story, Bill:
Courtesy of Anthony some time back, the original PDF is here:
http://docs.lib.noaa.gov/rescue/mwr/050/mwr-050-11-0589a.pdf
And Anthony’s story here:
http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/2008/03/16/you-ask-i-provide-november-2nd-1922-arctic-ocean-getting-warm-seals-vanish-and-icebergs-melt/#comments
Kookie story No. 56823459
!! People eating Oreo cookies causes global warming !!
http://money.cnn.com/2008/08/21/news/companies/palm_oil.fortune/index.htm?postversion=2008082110
(Via JunkScience)
Arctic sea ice currently appears to be the last straw the AGW community chose to catch.
La nina has gone and global cooling didn’t. PDO’s have switched, sunspots refuse to appear, the modeled hotspot in the tropical troposphere is still undiscoverable.
At the same time, a sceptic view is gaining ground within the scientific community, and unscientifc, not peer-reviewed data manipulation by AGW individuals and institutions is becoming increasingly citizised.
The Arctic sea ice is currently the last major anomaly that has the potential to frighten average people, and the possible flattening or reversal of the trend in 2008 – despite the huge amount of thin ice herited from 2007 suggests, that this may be a tipping point for the AGW agenda.
If arctic sea ice recovers, the AGW agenda is dead.
Manfred (04:11:03) :
Unfortunately, it’s not looking good right now. 2008 is no better than third lowest extent and falling. It will probably be the second lowest on record passing 2005 fairly soon unless the loss slows significantly. I don’t think it will equal 2007 but will still provide fodder for the alarmists since it will not be significantly higher in extent.
AGWers like Paul K pretend to be horrified by melting arctic ice and concerned about polar bears, when in fact those are simply desperately-needed icons. The faux shock and horror they display is actually at seeing their failing AGW religion going down in flames. It’s amusing to watch, actually.
An Enquirer,
I would like to get in on that sea ice action too. There is no way we have an ice-free arctic by 2013. i would even bet that the sea ice extent, or area, in 2013 exceeds the same measure of 2007. Maybe Anthony would hold the money. No one, skeptic or otherwise, doubts his integrity. He can keep the interest. Like Anthony doesn’t have enough to do otherwise. Payoff day is Christmas 2013.
Easy money, that’s why there will be no takers. Sunspots or no sunspots.
“The problem is that very stable long term ice structures are melting off and disappearing. The underwater ice ridges have mostly disappeared.”
Long term to what? A decade? Four decades? A century? And what does this have to do with AGW? Ocean currents are driven by differences in salinity and differences in insolation between the poles and the equator. Unless you can prove that GHGs somehow overcome variations in incoming solar radidation, this entire issue is a strawman.
Pride goeth before the fall. If the AGW Alarmists are anything, they are pridefull; they can never admit they’re wrong. Or worse yet, they can never admit that they simply do not know. No one knows with any degree of precision what the Artic ice caps looked like 80 years ago. But if they admit that, their entire Armegeddon Scenario goes up in flames.
I wonder how those Vikings settled, raise crops, and cattle from about 1000 to 1300 AD with all that ice?
I’d ask Mr. Chapman if he thought it wouldn’t be a big deal if a prominent site displaying scientific data of considerable current concern had a quote by say, GW Bush, Dick Cheney, Rush Limbaugh, etc (and a supporting comment in it by the site owners).
I would put in 300.00 if book makers were alarmists and the odds favored AGW. You can indeed fool enough people into placing a bet. Problem is that book makers are notorious for following their own nose. The odds would not bring us a windfall. But then again, savings accounts are only pegged at 3% or below, so it would still be a very safe place to invest.
“But then again, savings accounts are only pegged at 3% or below, so it would still be a very safe place to invest.” Pam the Red (head)
I think the official inflation rate is over 5% now so one would loose at least 2% a year in a savings account. me thinky, something stinky.
Hey Paul,
I’m not a scientist, but I do enjoy reading things on this global warming and climate change debate. A couple days ago, I downloaded the raw data on sea ice area, and I found that the max has been pretty close to the max for the past few years, and the min has been pretty close to the min the past few years. I have checked the rate of melt over the past couple of days, and I don’t see an unusually large rate of melt. I honestly don’t see this planet going to hell in a hand-basket.
The data is in a pretty user friendly download on this website:
http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/en/home/seaice_extent.htm
One last think – I’ll betcha a couple of beers that it is cold up there this winter, and there will be lots of ice; AND, if you were standing on one of those chunks of ice in January, you’d be freezing your butt off and would not and could not without the aid of instrumentation be able to determine if that particular day was a couple degrees warmer than last year or last century. In reality, right now, we really don’t know if it matters or not.
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…)?
The gold speck Marohassy has from Spencer is the AquaSat data. That call the entire concept of positive feedback into severe question.
The IPCC prediction was for positive feedback from increased ambient water vapor and high-altitude cloud cover. Instead, the data shows an increase of low-level cloud cover resulting in increased albedo and negative feedback. The rest of the atmosphere has seen some dessication.
If true, this completely blows the positive feedback argument. The direct effects from CO2 are real but much, much smaller. AGW depends completely on the strength of the feedback loops.
When this is taken in tandem with ocean cooling at all depths, as demonstrated by the Argobots, AGW theory is shaken to its foundations.
If this data proves false, then all bets are off. But if it’s true, then AGW is simply not a happening thing.
Open sea water cools much faster than ice covered sea water.
Mmm. But wouldn’t it also heat faster? Isn’t increased albedo from ice melt a critical domino in the CO2 positive feedback equation?
It would seem that the loss of ice cover in 2007 caused a lot of sea water cooling.
If that (and what you say above) is so, then wouldn’t loss of sea ice provide a negative rather than positive feedback?
Interesting . . .
Note to Anthony: how many points did I score with “go with the floe”?
(When I made the same bad pun last year I rated a distinct “ugh”.)
Have a nice weekend everyone.
“Poor Tom’s a-cold.”