(Note: image above and my emphasis added below. What is unlcear is what climate models the reviewed and whether they accepted or rejected it’s results. – Anthony)
Contact: Sheela McLean FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
907-586-7032 Dec. 23, 2008
NOAA Determines Ribbon Seals Should Not be Listed as Endangered
NOAA today announced that ribbon seals are not in current danger of extinction or likely to become endangered in the foreseeable future, and should not be listed under the Endangered Species Act.
On Dec. 20, 2007, the Center for Biological Diversity petitioned NOAA’s Fisheries Service to list the ribbon seal under the Endangered Species Act. The petition said the seal faced extinction by the end of the century due to rapid melting of sea ice resulting from global warming. Sea-ice in the Bering Sea, Sea of Okhotsk, Sea of Japan, Chukchi Sea, and Beaufort Sea is the seal’s primary habitat. Today’s announcement is the result of NOAA’s review of this petition and the condition of the ribbon seal.
“Our scientists have reviewed climate models that project that annual ice, which is critical for ribbon seal reproduction, molting and resting, will continue to form each winter in the Bering Sea and the Sea of Okhotsk where the majority of ribbon seals are located,” said Jim Balsiger, NOAA’s acting assistant administrator for fisheries.
From March to June, ribbon seals use sea ice. As the ice melts during May and June, the seals haul out along the receding ice edge or in remnant patches of ice. Once the annual ice melts, most ribbon seals either migrate through the Bering Strait into the Chukchi Sea or remain in the open water of the Bering Sea during the rest of the year.
Although the number of ribbon seals is difficult to estimate accurately, scientists believe that at least 200,000 ribbon seals inhabit the Bering Sea and the Sea of Okhotsk.
Commercial hunting for ribbon seals is prohibited in the United States. Alaska Natives take a small number – fewer than 200 – each year for subsistence. Russia allows a harvest of ribbon seals, but there is currently no organized harvest industry and the number of seals taken is likely to be very low.
NOAA understands and predicts changes in the Earth's environment, from the depths of the ocean to the surface of the sun, and conserves and manages our coastal and marine resources. Visit http://www.noaa.gov.
On the Web:
NOAA’s Alaska Fisheries Science Center: http://www.afsc.noaa.gov/nmml/species/species_ribbon.php
NOAA’s Fisheries Service Alaska Region: http://www.alaskafisheries.noaa.gov
– 30 –
On Modelling “Random”; or “How to Lie with Statistics”.
I’m going to presume, that most of the posters here are too young to remember the Viet Nam War era; or more specifically, the Viet Nam War Draft Lottery.
In the interest of “fairness” it was decided to hold a lottery to decide who should be chosen first to send (as conscripts) to war in Viet Nam; a Government Responsibility of no small implication.
So the days of the year were numered from 1 on Jan 1, to 366 of Dec 31, including Feb 29.
Then those numbers were drawn at random out of a typical number drawing contrivance of 1960s vintage; good enough for the senior’s Bingo parlor.
Those whoes numbers were drawn first, and who were also classified as One-A on their draft card, were the first to be called up. Waht could be fairer than such a system, presuming that it was necessary to send anybody (not the subject of this post).
And so it was that the very first draft lottery took place to send draftees to Viet Nam.
It took less than a week for mathematicians to come out of the woodwork, and declare the result of that first lottery to be NON-RANDOM; and a raucus uproar followed in the news on Dead Tree press.
The mathematicians claimed that the lottery targetted people who were born in the early months of the year, as the first drawn numbers were crowded into the early part of the year. The Furor lasted a few years, and finally led to the demise of the draft lottery system; never to be since revived.
Now none of these Rocket Scientists Mathematicians, and Statisticians ever bothered to point out the obvious truth to the public.
Now I don’t remember the actual sequaence of num,bers that was drawn, in that first draft lottery; but one thing I do know, is that it was a sequence that was highly unlikely to occur; in fact it was only likely to occur once in factorial 366 tries; a number so close to infinity; that it doesn’t really matter much.
Now everybody would have been shocked out of their wits if another equally rare result had occurred in that first Draft lottery. How a bout Jan1, jan2, jan3, jan4, …..Dec 27, dec,28, dec29, dec30, dec31. Waht if that had been the result; it is no more unlikely than the result that actually happened; yet so-called expert statisticians were eager to vclaim the lottery was biassed
Now if they had had one draft lottery every picosecond for the whole year, they may have obtained enough data out of the set of factorial 366 possibilities to say it was biassed; but on the basis of a single data point, they happily committed professional suicide.
Statistics, can tell you absolutely nothing at all about the next datum in a sequence; it can only tell you the expectation on average of a large number of future unknown data points based on the past.
Looking at the plotted data for each of those examples of Anthony’s errant official weather reporting sites, I believe it is inherently impossible to predict the next value to be observed, or even to answer the question; will it be higher or lower than the last recorded value.
On top of that Statistical cautioon, is the simple fact that statistical correlation is no grounds for inferring a cause and effect relationship; and particularly if the cause post dates the effect.
Now in Relativity theory (even special relativity), insituations where special relativity applies; one cannot decide on the order of events, depending on the observation conditions. Two “simultaneous” events, can be observed in either order, depending on the observer’s conditions.
But other than that weird realm; we generally like our causes to happen before the events they cause.
So we all have a brabd new species for Christmas; the Ribbon Seal. It seems that we are finding new species faster than the old ones can go extinct; something must be wrong with the system.
CodeTech (10:56:02) : … I have no idea exactly what his voodoo model is doing, but it’s complex and in depth. Unfortunately, it also does not work, and cannot work. …YOU CAN’T MODEL RANDOM
Obviously, if your friend is looking at possible biases, he doesn’t concur with your assessment of “random”. Personally, I’m with E. T. Jaynes, “Random” is a measure of incomplete knowledge.
I have not seen any reference to this graph for a week or so, a graph, which in the past has so often been used here.
Could it be because the sea ice is showing an unusual regression at a time when it should be growing steadily?
http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/daily_images/N_timeseries.png
Bill Illis (09:27:26) :
said
“Maybe they were too quick with this decision.
NSIDC says the arctic ice started melting again about 2 weeks ago: -25C temperatures but apparently there is no freezing at these temps.
http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/daily_images/N_timeseries.png”
The graph you in your link does not indicate the Arctic Sea Ice is melting.
It is a graph of Arctic Sea Ice extent, and it showed the rate of increase of sea ice extent slowed down. The ice extent is still increasing. By definition extent is the area in which the 15% of more of the sea is covered by ice. Even if the extent did not increase, the area in question could be filled in with a larger percentage of ice coverage.
“Could it be because the sea ice is showing an unusual regression at a time when it should be growing steadily?”
That comment is somewhat misleading. The area of 100% ice coverage HAS been increasing. What has decreased is the amount of unconsolidated ice of 60% or less. Imagine an area with chunks of ice floating around so that 15% of the are was ice covered (that graph covers area of 15% or greater). That entire area counts as “ice extent”. Now a storm comes up and blows all that ice up so that it bunches up against solid ice pack. Suddently “ice extent” is greatly reduced but there isn’t really any less ice. In fact, there might be a lot more ice because areas that were only 60% covered could now be 100% covered but that doesn’t change “ice extent”.
Notice that the “loss” of ice (use graphics at Cryosphere Today) happened pretty much all North of Norway. Also notice that the area of 80-100% coverage didn’t change. What changed was the amount of ice of 60% or less concentration. Temperatures there are well below freezing and set to get a particularly cold blast over the next several days. Look for that ice extent graph to change and go the other direction over the next several days. We still have until March to go before we get to maximum.
Ice extent and area will change greatly with varying wind direction and speed. A storm can blow ice for miles and pack it together someplace else.
If you compare today’s ice to 1980’s ice you see that the ice in the Arctic Ocean is more concentrated now than it was then, less ice in the Bering Strait but the ice that is there is more concentrated than in 1980. There is now more ice off Western Greenland. Give it a few days. The weather will change and so will the 15% coverage of ice.
Ah but DAV, my other point is that he cannot have access to the equipment, therefore is forced to hypothesize his biases. As far as I know, the companies that make lottery equipment do their best to eliminate biases, so the ink weighting should be balanced, the static charge and/or humidity should be controlled, and all balls should be as equal as humanly possible.
I’m actually surprised nobody hollered at me for suggesting that climate is random… which I don’t believe. Climate is a chaotic system with boundaries.
Peter Taylor (17:04:31) :
I have not seen any reference to this graph for a week or so, a graph, which in the past has so often been used here.
Could it be because the sea ice is showing an unusual regression at a time when it should be growing steadily?
http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/daily_images/N_timeseries.png
That graph has been the subject of much discussion around here. See this discussion – http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/12/13/something-is-rotten-in-norway-500000-sq-km-of-sea-ice-disappears-overnight/
Re: Arctic ice extent
Here’s a comment I left on the 1/4 mil week thread.
Pamela Gray (07:52:39)
Good job on trying to explain the puzzle. When I saw the plots at NANSEN, with ice extent decreasing while area remained mostly flat, I figured it had to be strong storms/wind/current holding back the expansion of ice extent with ice being compacted.
Looks like everyone’s been puzzled by this little oddity, even the folks at NSIDC. Here’s a posting at Roger Pielke Sr.’s website with feedback by NSIDC’s Mark Serreze. Seems they’ve been checking around to confirm the data they’ve been getting.
http://climatesci.org/2008/12/23/update-by-mark-serreze-on-current-sea-ice-coverage/
The stop in expansion that began Dec 10 seems to have finally ended. Data at IARC-JAXA is finally showing increase in the AMSR-E Sea Ice Extent, beginning Dec 21 and increasing even more Dec 22.
And for everybody out there, have a very Merry Christmas!
George E. Smith (17:01:32) : On Modelling “Random”; or “How to Lie with Statistics”.
I’m going to presume, that most of the posters here are too young to remember the Viet Nam War era; or more specifically, the Viet Nam War Draft Lottery. … The “mathematicians” claimed that the lottery targetted people who were born in the early months of the year, as the first drawn numbers were crowded into the early part of the year. The Furor lasted a few years, and finally led to the demise of the draft lottery system; never to be since revived.
Now none of these Rocket Scientists Mathematicians, and Statisticians ever bothered to point out the obvious truth to the public.
Now I don’t remember the actual sequaence of numbers that was drawn, in that first draft lottery;
FYI: there’s a difference between “mathematician” and “statistician”.
The results of the first lottery are here: http://www.sss.gov/lotter1.htm. I haven’t run any tests but the numbers look pretty well spread out. Despite the fact that colloquially the numbers were drawn, in practice slips containing the dates were drawn — not the numbers. The numbers were assigned to birthdays by the drawing and the SSS sent out draft notices in 1..N order.
What I do remember was the impression that EVERY number was called making the whole exercise sardonic. According to Selective Service though 195/366 numbers were called. My number was 076. Lucky me — the only drawing I have ever “won”.
but one thing I do know, is that it was a sequence that was highly unlikely to occur; in fact it was only likely to occur once in factorial 366 tries; a number so close to infinity; that it doesn’t really matter much.
Technically true for any given sequence but not true for any given distribution. Drawing Jan1-Dec 31 in order would (and should) raise some eyebrows as the distribution is VERY far from what would be called “random”. Did you know that any the probability of any real variable having EXACTLY a specific value is zero yet some values are more probable than others? Fun stuff, stats.
On top of that Statistical cautioon, is the simple fact that statistical correlation is no grounds for inferring a cause and effect relationship; and particularly if the cause post dates the effect.
That’s an idea started with Karl Pearson and championed by Ronald Fisher. Fisher’s claim was that only intervention (i.e., experiment) can arbitrate cause/effect however it’s really only true that a single correlation is insufficient to determine causation. If there is a set of interrelated variables at least SOME specific causation among them can be inferred. I refer you to the works of Judea Pearl: “Causality: Models, Reasoning, and Inference”; Peter Sprites, Clark Glymour, Richard Scheines: “Causation, Prediction, and Search”; and Richard Neapolitan “Learning Bayesian Networks” — all available from Amazon . The last is the easiest read IMHO.
Don’t know about ice growth in the Arctic, but I can categorically confirm that the Nanaimo River was completely iced over to within a Kilometre of the sea at 1pm PST. Warming? What warming?
CodeTech (17:27:32) : Ah but DAV, my other point is that he cannot have access to the equipment, therefore is forced to hypothesize his biases
Ah, but MY point is that randomness is a fictitious attribute and your friend has the right idea of modelling possible biases and testing those hypotheses. What’s wrong with that? I don’t care how careful the manufacturer is. The ink on the balls HAS to supply a bias. The only question is whether that bias causes a discernible pattern. The same can be said for all other biases, introduced or inherent. FWIW: I don’t think quantifying the bias introduced by the ink will lend a sufficient advantage to be worthwhile. Still, your friend’s approach is the only one that has a chance of any success.
When it accepted the petition for investigation in March of 2008, NOAA recognized that there could be some merit to the concern. The report of the experts, which denying the status of threatened did endorse the concerns of the Center, but said that at this time, they did not appear to represent a threat to the survival of the species:
“In consideration of all of the threats and potential threats identified above, the assessment of the risks posed by those threats, the possible cumulative impacts, and the uncertainty associated with all of these, the BRT drew the following conclusions:
1. Ribbon seals are not in current danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of their range. (78 out of 80 likelihood points)
2. The ribbon seal population is likely to decline gradually for the foreseeable future, primarily from slight but chronic impacts on reproduction and survival caused by reduced frequency of years with sea ice of suitable extent, quality, and duration of persistence. (51 out of 80 likelihood points)
3. Despite the expectation of a gradual decline, ribbon seals are not likely to become an endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of their range. (57 out of 80 likelihood points)
Finally, to reinforce the notion that reliable and effective assessments of species’ conservation status cannot be conducted without adequate estimates of abundance, the BRT concluded that despite the expectation of a declining ribbon seal population, it will likely not be possible to detect and document a significant overall decline unless monitoring is made a very high priority for both the Bering Sea and Sea of Okhotsk.”
‘The Center for Biological Diversity claims that NOAA is mistaken.
Its argument is as follows:
http://www.biologicaldiversity.org/news/press_releases/2008/ribbon-seal-12-23-2008.html
“…The ribbon seal is a decoratively patterned resident of the Bering, Chukchi, and Okhotsk seas off Alaska and Russia whose survival depends on the sea ice. During the late winter through early summer, ribbon seals rely on the edge of the sea ice away from predators as safe nursery for giving birth and rearing their pups. However, this sea-ice habitat is melting at a rapid pace that is vastly exceeding the predictions of climate models. Sea-ice loss and early sea-ice breakup threaten the ribbon seal’s ability to successfully rear its young by forcing pups to enter the icy Arctic waters before they are big enough and strong enough to survive.
The impacts of global warming on the ribbon seal will worsen in coming years. Scientists expect that the Arctic will be ice-free in the summer as early as 2012 while the ribbon seal’s winter sea-ice habitat in the Bering and Okhotsk seas is projected to decline 40 percent by mid century if current greenhouse gas emissions continue. Any remaining sea ice will be much thinner and unlikely to last through the pup-rearing period, leading to widespread pup mortality….”
The completely false ads by WWF on the subject don’t help the matter. Without the actual facts at hand, the masses will soak this crap up and believe every bit of it.
Ken
Seriously, you were supposed to laugh. Maybe you have not caught some of my other posts they sometimes have a s n i p but I thought for sure you would have picked up on the carbon sequestering. Maybe things have gotten politically much worse than I could have imagined. But I think that the sun has something to say yet about the ice and temperatures, we will see. We have seemingly discarded science in favor of the belief that somehow humans are in charge.
Eric (18:27:37) :
However, this sea-ice habitat is melting at a rapid pace that is vastly exceeding the predictions of climate models. Sea-ice loss and early sea-ice breakup threaten the ribbon seal’s ability to successfully rear its young by forcing pups to enter the icy Arctic waters before they are big enough and strong enough to survive.
The impacts of global warming on the ribbon seal will worsen in coming years. Scientists expect that the Arctic will be ice-free in the summer as early as 2012 while the ribbon seal’s winter sea-ice habitat in the Bering and Okhotsk seas is projected to decline 40 percent by mid century if current greenhouse gas emissions continue. Any remaining sea ice will be much thinner and unlikely to last through the pup-rearing period, leading to widespread pup mortality….”
Add drowning seal pups (poor little tykes) to drowning polar bears… Damn CO2 Emissions.
On a lighter note…http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JmPSUMBrJoI
Timely.
Whoops – need more white space…
Enjoy.
Might as well have a look at this one too.
Set those Minnesotan Flamingo’s FREE!
Has no one let them in on the secret?
Polar Bears Swim and
<a href=”http://www.sandiegozoo.org/animalbytes/t-polar_bear.htmlPolar bears float
Where was the NOAA when Neanderthals were facing extinction? Smilodon? The dinosaurs?
“Where was the NOAA when Neanderthals were facing extinction?”
I had a notion to produce a phony suggestion to build a mega power plant in Alaska and send the power down to the lower 48 where we would use it for electric cars. But what I would do is make the proposed CO2 and sulphur emissions exactly the same as current emissions from Alaska volcanoes. Then I would sit back and wait for the howling about how those emissions would “absolutely destroy” the “fragile arctic environment” , und so weiter. Then to see the shock when I would tell then that such “absolute destruction” goes on day in and day out, year after year from the natural volcanoes in the area … it would be priceless.
Grant Hodges (14:32:56) :
Hi Anna V.,
Are you still thinking that the volcanic activity is responsible for the charts we are seeing saying that ice formation stopped the past couple of weeks?
I am just offering a hypothesis, due to the localized “hot spot” in the anomaly map and the fact that there is on going geothermal activity in the region. I gave a link above and there is a link in the ” excess cold deaths” thread here.
Another hypothesis offered here is “strong storms”.
Were there strong storms in the region the last two weeks? It seems so from Yahoo Weather in Reykjavik Weather Iceland
* Today: Rain and wind. High 44F. Winds SSW at 25 to 40 mph. Rainfall near a half an inch.
* Tonight: Rain showers along with windy conditions. Low 34F. Winds SSW at 25 to 35 mph. Chance of rain 60%.
* Tomorrow: Windy with rain showers. Temps nearly steady in the mid to upper 30s. Winds SW at 25 to 35 mph. Chance of rain 50%.
* Tomorrow night: Showers in the evening with some clearing overnight. Low around 35F. Winds SW at 20 to 30 mph. Chance of rain 40%.
So the temperatures are above freezing and the wind is south /southwest.
A volcanism and geothermal hypothesis needs more data to have a chance of adding to the soup, for example a CO2 or sulfur excess, and for that one has to wait for the new satellite.
anna v (21:09:59) :
Grant Hodges (14:32:56) :
“Hi Anna V.,
Are you still thinking that the volcanic activity is responsible for the charts we are seeing saying that ice formation stopped the past couple of weeks?”
I am just offering a hypothesis, due to the localized “hot spot” in the anomaly map and the fact that there is on going geothermal activity in the region.
Or the more likely possibility that rather than a ‘hot spot’ it’s the absence of the usual ‘cold spot’, i.e. water not ice.
Graeme Rodaughan (19:09:17) :
Whoops – need more white space…
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JmPSUMBrJoI
Enjoy.
23 12 2008
Graeme Rodaughan (19:21:10) :
Might as well have a look at this one too.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qJUFTm6cJXM
Set those Minnesotan Flamingo’s FREE!
Genius. We need to get these linked from Drudge. They may do more to put the kibosh on this Global Idiocy than anything I have seen to date.
Phil. (22:07:29) :
“Or the more likely possibility that rather than a ‘hot spot’ it’s the absence of the usual ‘cold spot’, i.e. water not ice.”
Were you watching the cryosphere you would have known that it had not frozen over where that “hot spot” is now. Of course it is the difference in the water temperatures for the anomaly maps and it shows that the water is two degrees warmer than some average for the spot. That is why Siberia can appear maroon when it is much below -30C anyway.
It is the localization that is intriguing. That storms will bring warmth is inevitable, but that should be gradual and moving. I would suspect all localized “hot spots” of volcanic/geothermal activity, as a hypothesis to be tested further.
anna v (22:39:53) :
Phil. (22:07:29) :
“Or the more likely possibility that rather than a ‘hot spot’ it’s the absence of the usual ‘cold spot’, i.e. water not ice.”
Were you watching the cryosphere you would have known that it had not frozen over where that “hot spot” is now.
Exactly, that’s the point.
Of course it is the difference in the water temperatures for the anomaly maps and it shows that the water is two degrees warmer than some average for the spot.
And lots of time where we see those red patches in the Arctic they’re open patches of water where most of the basetime period it was ice.