Guest Post by Steven Goddard
The Catlin Arctic Survey has generated quite a bit of discussion, more because of the difficulties they have faced than because of the scientific merit of their expedition. Their home page is covered with testimonials about the importance of measuring “ice decline” and raising “climate change awareness.”
Normally a scientific experiment will start out with a neutral approach, where the conclusions are derived from the data, rather than arriving at conclusions prior to attempting to collect data. The appearance of presumption presented on their web site that they are measuring “ice decline,” could easily be interpreted to be putting the cart before the horse.
It is also difficult to understand how they could be measuring “ice decline” from a single set of data points taken at minus 40C, measured over an eight week period.
Are they going to come back next year and measure again? Not likely, and even if they did the ice would not be in the same place next year – as it is blown around by the wind. There is little question that the ice will continue to thicken over the next few weeks, as it normally does not start to melt near the pole until late June or early July. Fortunately we do have an objective and consistently reliable data source to work with, from that same region.
The US Army keeps a set of buoys on the ice which continuously monitor ice thickness, temperature and location year round. These buoys maintain themselves with a minimum of trauma, twittering, publicity, rescue expeditions and frostbite – and are normally able to provide more than one year of data.
The Google Earth map below shows the attempted Catlin route in green markers, and the Army buoys in yellow. The buoys are marked with approximate thickness of the ice, which I estimated based on the water depth where the temperature rapidly drops below the freezing point of seawater (minus 2C.)
As an example, I estimated the thickness at buoy 2007J as 3.5 metres, based on the graph below. Above -350 cm, the water temperature drops off quickly below -2C, which means that it is frozen.
http://imb.crrel.usace.army.mil/buoy_plots/2007J.gif
All five buoys show water temperatures indicating ice thickness in the range of 3-4 metres. Catlin is attempting to take another 10,000 or so measurements on the shifting, moving ice they are trying to travel across. While that data may be useful in understanding the local behaviour of the ice, it likely will provide little information about long-term ice trends, unless the same measurements are taken on a consistent basis over many years. You can also see in the 2007J graph above that the ice has thickened at least half a metre since March, 2008.
In most fields of science, that is considered an increase rather than a “decline.”
From the Army web site:
Data policy: We encourage the use of all data on this web site. Please reference any data use as:
Perovich, D.K., J.A. Richter-Menge, B. Elder, K. Claffey, and C. Polashenski, Observing and understanding climate change: Monitoring the mass balance, motion, and thickness of Arctic sea ice, http://www.crrel.usace.army.mil/sid/IMB/
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
So do these folks skating on the ice not know about these buoys? Shouldn’t a kind soul leave a post on their web site telling them that they can come home now?
dear mr. Goddard
O/T, but have you read this post http://www.cejournal.net/?p=1428?????
Of course reporting the Catlin ‘survey’,responsible journalists and their editors would balance their article with “however, US Army Ice buoys using longer term data have reported………”.
Wouldn’t they?
Let’s wish the people well and hope they don’t get hurt from this stunt. Imagine new martyrs in search of their grail while they had but to ask what the buoys had to say. Obviously they are in it more for the misadventure. Pity.
Too bad Al Gore isn’t with them.
jorge,
Thanks for the WAIS link. The “collapse” of the WAIS is an AGW favorite.
From Wikipedia –
The West Antarctic ice sheet has warmed by more than 0.1 C/decade in the last 50 years, and is strongest in winter and spring.
So if winter temperatures increase from -30 to -29 degrees, how exactly is that going to cause collapse?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/West_Antarctic_Ice_Sheet
Also, the weight of the ice causes the ground underneath to depress into a bowl shape, which stabilizes the ice.
James Hansen, a senior NASA scientist who is a leading climate adviser to the US government, said the results were deeply worrying. “Once a sheet starts to disintegrate, it can reach a tipping point beyond which break-up is explosively rapid,” he said. [7]
And monkeys may fly …..
I just hope they don’t kill them fool selves !
Go the the Catlin survey site and you will find this post:http://www.catlinarcticsurvey.com/Difficult_decisions_
They describe things like “open water” and year old ice, thickness 1m. What utter rubbish. Look at the Land Surface Temperature images from the Aqua satellite and you will see that the the “cracks” are well below -17 degrees Celsius. That is not open water. Look at this image and the temperature legend:
http://rapidfire.sci.gsfc.nasa.gov/realtime/single.php?2009077/lst2.A2009077215500-2009077220000.2km.jpg
HOw could it be 1m thick when the average buoy measurement is greater than 3.5m? They haven’t transmitted an iota of data yet, but they must have done some surveying of the landing strip and come up with the 1m thickness. Does that mean ALL their readings will be X/3.5? THey have just got a plane finally landed for resupply. They would be wise to ask for a lift home.
hengav,
It is very likely that they are seeing some open water and thin ice, as the winds move ice around and cause stresses that crack the ice. That happens every winter.
I don’t think there is any reason to believe that the data they are reporting is incorrect. I’m just questioning the value of the data wrt understanding long term trends in thickness.
This is all about perception and headlines: in its weekly agit prop science section the Globe and Mail the Canadian AGW mainstream mouthpiece -the only Canadian newspaper linked from desmogblog, and that is quite an endorsement- is now quoting a Reuters report -Thomson-Reuters owns CTV Globemedia parent company of the Globe- about another 2 studies published in -you guessed it- Nature, claiming a small increase in GHGs will finish off the West antarctica ice…
Steven
Actually I disagree. I have been watching the LST measurements (and commenting on them) around Alert and the high arctic for over 2 weeks. Ir was my first introduction to studying the flow patterns and the relative temperatures of different fissures. When I looked at the passage between Alert and Greenland I noticed a discrete temperature change associated with ice “flow”. There is none of that going on in the high arctic at the moment. The fissures that surround the team’s position have been there for well over 2 weeks now. There is no apparent displacement of ice from the arctic basin, rather it is collecting. The evidence comes directly from the movement of the Catlin team itself, it is heading SOUTH. The only way you would get open water is if the ice shifted and moved north, displacing ice faster into the ocean east of Greenland than the movement of the main ice mass is traveling. The images don’t lie, fly around the globe a bit with Aqua and you will see for yourself. My interpretation may be off as the days get warmer, but they picked a mighty dangerous spot to start the journey, and it is not going to get any easier for them any time soon.
Don’t wish Gore on them. They will end up in a blizzard and under 6m of snow
“Normally a scientific experiment will start out with a neutral approach, where the conclusions are derived from the data, rather than arriving at conclusions prior to attempting to collect data.”
In my opinion the real scientific approach should be: “We have a theory that the artic ice thickness is declining in the last decennia. This expedition is set up to falsifying this theory. Only then the expedition members (and we!) will know at forehand what they will measure and how.
It does seem that the adventure is the goal and the “science” is thing being used to be paid for the adventure.
No doubt if the science involved sitting in a portacabin in Slough taking temperature measurements for a year they wouldn’t be bothered doing it.
So, the science is just an excuse for a jolly.
Regards
Andy
Sounds kinda like a sociologist try to do real science.
I hope he makes it back.
Well, “jolly” I don’t think it is. It doesn’t seem to be going well in any aspect. They are hardly going fast enough to stay in place. It is well they got re-supplied. They will have a few more days to consider the really hard decision of closing this folly down and going home. There was never anything scientific they were going to accomplish — as the buoys may — so they can go finish off the publicity in London, get 15 minutes of fame, have a pint, and call it good.
Meant to mention this in the first post I made; sorry.
Another set of Arctic Buoys with possibilities of yielding real science:
http://iabp.apl.washington.edu/maps_daily_map.html
The longer they stay out there, the greater the chance they will be hit by a big storm. I hope they stay safe and warm, even though I think they are performing a stupid stunt for the wrong reasons.
hengav (22:12:32) :
You say that the tem is heading SOUTH??? Do you have any notion as to why they are heading south when heir objective is to each the north pole?
http://ice-glaces.ec.gc.ca/app/WsvPrdCanQry.cfm?CanID=11081&Lang=eng
🙂 Took me all of six seconds to find the above link.. this site also does thickness and flow of ice… seems like a few cases of frostbite could have been avoided if they would have done a little research:)
See, according to the AGW hypothesis, the increasing thickness if arctic ice is a direct indication of global warming, same with thickening ice in Greenland and Antarctica. And the warmer it gets, the thicker the ice will get until it is all gone and the polar bears disappear.
“You can also see in the 2007J graph above that the ice has thickened at least half a metre since March, 2008.
In most fields of science, that is considered an increase rather than a “decline.”
”
The multiyear ice is thickening. Wow, the things you learn! I thought that it was the decline of the age and percentage of the multiyear ice that was causing the declining thickness of the Arctic ice cap, now I find it is actualy the multiyear ice that is meant to be thinning.
I stand corrected said the man in the orthopedic shoes.
The figure with the data doesn’t seem to have the 14th March 2009 circles on it – the big round red ones, that is.
Any chance of putting those on?
And now for something completely….the same!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=46btEgKmCTo
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vgHsCyWkB5g
“Sledgehammer (21:03:27) :
Too bad Al Gore isn’t with them.”
What bear could pass up THAT tasty treat?
JimB