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/
It is interesting that the buoys show 3-4 metres in thickness. I seem to recall that the Catlin group was indicating not more than 2 metres of ice and 1-2 metres of snow above. The mistake this bunch made was not starting from the north pole. Then they would not have the ice movement against them in that direction. At this rate I doubt they will make it half way.
Jim Cripwell
1 year ago it was the Ice extent.
Then as it grew, it was the Ice thikness.
As changes in wind aparantly have somehow compacted Ice, it has to be something else.
— The team is going to the ground to “prove” that top ice layer is not as thick as bottom ice layer, althought ICE extent will keep on increasing as it is right now. this computed in some model will global warming something!
wanna bet?
Ice extent was a enough for AGW argument. Not by a log shot enough to anyother argument. Some years ago, it was the one making the unbeliable claims that had to have amazing prove… now it the other way around. How did that happen?!
Martyrs of the New Gaia Faith?
“The term martyr (Greek μάρτυς martys “witness”) is most commonly used today to describe an individual who sacrifices his or her life (or personal freedom) in order to further a cause or belief for many”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martyr
Related: Seth-Pool & Weaver reporting from [AP].
But, it seems a shift in MSM’s fabulous AGW fabulism is occurring.
…-
Big melt seen in Antarctic past, and maybe future
By Seth Borenstein, THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Environment/2009/03/18/8799181-ap.html
Bruce Cobb (04:32:57) :
Dorlomin (00:45:41)
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.
Wow, an overall decline in ice extent for a number of years, along with a large decline in 2007 mainly due to ocean currents and winds, and the age and percentage of multiyear ice is STILL recovering less than two years later?
—
Recent “Low Periods” since the Little Ice Age ended about 1850.
– Use in comparison with winters 2007-2008-2009.
Last time I know of that Iceland was surrounded by substantially-solid ice was 1968. (The Little Ice Age, Brian Fagan.) Before that, 1888. Before that, 1855. (Does anyone see a thirty year cycle here? 1915-1920’s were cold, but I have no Iceland coastal ice reports.)
Remember that 20th century “dip” between the very warm 1935-1942, and 1985-1998 warm periods? That 10 year “drop” in temperatures occurred while CO2 was steadily rising. It is “conveniently ignored” by Al Gore and Hansen because it doesn’t fit their template of CO2-induced warmth. Instead, their minions steadily increase (er, “adjust”) low recorded temperatures during this period, and reduce (er, “correct”) high temperatures between 1930 and 1942. All for the sake of “accuracy” of course.)
1971-1972. Tigris River froze over. Record colds in Turkey and eastern Europe. This year 2008-2009, it snowed in Iraq.
1962-1963. Extreme colds in SW England, skating on rivers outside London. Called the coldest winter in the 20th century. Same (or worse!) in 2008-2009.
From the AMSR-E graph above, notice that sea ice extent in mid-March, 2009, is now third highest EVER recorded for this date, and sea ice extent is nearing the second-highest level.
Funny, isn’t it?
The second-highest sea ice extent for March ever recorded is 2008. Third highest is March 2009. Thought we were melting ice up there at -37 degrees C.
All that “open water” in September 2007 that was supposed to be “feeding back” and “never re-freezing” because “open water absorbs heat like a black plate” and contributes to further global warming that melts more sea ice and absorbs more heat ……
Guess Hansen-Gore-Obama are wrong.
Again.
Jim Cripwell,
If the ice was relatively static, having a lot of very precise measurements in close proximity might be interesting. However, the ice is constantly moving, shifting, melting, freezing. etc. and varies tremendously from week to week and month to month. Even if they were moving and collecting data rather than spending almost of their time trying to stay alive, I would doubt the value of the data towards their stated purpose of raising awareness of climate change. All that most people will see is a group of people who are surprised by how cold it is in the Arctic, and struggling to treat frostbite and stay warm in -42C weather.
Eric:
“…It is intended to give scientists the very latest “ground truth”, to better constrain their models and their interpretation of the observations coming from satellites. ..”
The data from buoys comes only from multi year ice blocks which drift around in the ocean and cannot provide the kind of cross sectional data that the expedition can supply, to calibrate the satellite measurements.
I wasn’t aware the satellites attempted to measure ice thickness. How would they do that?. The metrics they supply tell us about area and extent. How then will the thickness data be used to ‘calibrate satellite measurements’?
I’m all for constraining models, and alarmist handwaving though.
Steven Goddard (21:03:56) :
“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.”
Which raises the nagging question of why it is our culture has so quickly accepted the contributory “encyclopedia Wikipedia” as an authority? On anything. It’s obvious flaws were recently demonstrated on the TV show “30 Rock” – when staff writer Frank tampers with Wikipedia’s Janis Joplin bio and Jenna, cast to play Janis, believes her character eats cats and is afraid of toilets. Hilarious. And kinda sad.
1. The ice thickness can vary greatly in a short distance, particularly at pressure ridges.
2. There are not many buoys thus not much information for navigational use.
3. Don’t surface under a buoy.
4. I think the Army needs to know surface conditions more than it needs navigational tools for the fleet of Army submarines.
Especially because liberals have more time to protest and update Wikipedia, and for AGW topics they have the fox guarding the hen house.
is this even politically correct to post on the web?
Antarctic Ice May Melt, But Not For Millennia
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=102066621&ft=1&f=1001
and from NPR nonetheless!
The other day the Catlin site was showing forward progress at over 1.5 km/day; now it’s at 1.44 km/day. At this rate they’ll be showing negative values in a about three weeks. Perhaps when they end up in Canada they’ll be able to declare their mission a resounding success.
Can anyone detail the physics of ice thickness measurement using the device on this expedition? I thought radar normally needs a reflective surface to measure the return delta. Does this radar distinguish ice from liquid H2O?
Eric writes “There seems to be a campaign of mindless negativism on this web site, to say the least, and this blogpost by Steven Goddard is a good example of it.”
Precisely. Thank you, Eric.
Forgive me if someone else already linked this but it looks as if these Global Warming Scientist relied to heavily on their models when they prepared for the trip.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,509735,00.html
Jim,
Please excuse my apparent negativity. Something about this bothers me:
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/mar/18/obama-climate-plan-could-cost-2-trillion/
Installing ice-fixed small sonar sations at the pole and measuring at regular time intervals as it drifts with the ice would produce a much more interesting set of data as to the dynamics of the ice movements up there.
Jim and Eric:
There are far easier and less dangerous ways to calibrate satellite estimates of ice thickness than this particular effort. It was apparently designed to increase awareness of climate change. Scientifically it appears to have extremely limited merit, while endangering the lives of those who have to keep these folks alive.
I don’t see the negativity of the original post nor most of the comments – just surprise at how “dumb” this enterprise is. Are you suggesting that this was an intelligent thing to do and warrants the risks and resources?
Back in 1989, then Sen. Al Gore was under the ice with the USS Seahorse and proposed similar random ice measurements (from the subs). Given the wind related ice drift and the current in the arctic (most ice piles up on top of Greenland where the ice can reach thicknesses of up to 40 feet). Obviously a submarine would be a better platform for measuring ice thickness in adverse conditions but one is still left with the problem of relating the data from one year to the next. We could not convince him of the basic problems of such measurements.
Evidently the true point of the current expedition is more political than scientific.
I know that sonar can distinguish the difference between the water/ice interface and the ice/air interface. Assuming that the energy emitted from the radar was placed on the surface of the ice, it would likely pick up the reflection as well since both sonar and radar operate in the RF spectrum.
Mindless negativism? Nay. Thoughtful skepticism — the hallmark of real science.
Frankly, from the description of this data collection attempt, I have no idea whether the results will have any meaning at all. It seems the data will be way too spotty and narrow to have any meaning in the larger scheme of things. Unless there is systematic measurement at regular intervals over long periods of time, how can one draw any useful conclusions? I don’t get it. That’s not mindless negativism. That’s just sensible, realistic questioning of the design of the experiment.
This is a different Eric — just to be clear. I don’t think the other Eric has changed positions. 🙂
Jim Cripwell said
“Eric writes “There seems to be a campaign of mindless negativism on this web site, to say the least, and this blogpost by Steven Goddard is a good example of it.”
To which jim replied
“Precisely. Thank you, Eric.”
I have made a number of posts on this and other threads pointing out these are serious minded people-Pen Hadow is a nearish number of mine and is a highly experienced explorer who loves the arctic- and the comments that he doesnt know what he is doing are clearly misinformed.
Having said that I do question the scientifc hypotheses behind this.
They will have properly surveyed-by augur and radar- a narrow line 900 kms long. Whilst we must certainly welcome real world science for a change it proves nothing, other than at a precise date, along a precise line 900kms long, they found certain readings. Unless repeated annually for many years, the data is interesting but not scientific, and even then only covers a tiny fraction of the ice which may or may not be representative.
I am also concerned that data will be take out of context- witness arctic ice measurements since 1978. That measurement started from a high base due to the cold preceding years, but any reduction is constantly cited as ‘unprecedented’ but does not take into acount the fact that the ice cap seems to partially melt on a regular basis as has been posted here numerous times.
So we are not all negative, it is just that this does not appear to pass the test of being a genuine scientific endeavour that will have any relevance unless put into a proper context.
Tonyb
Ric Werme (05:26:06) :
Thanks Ric. They posted March 17th now on the home page. I am still missing something though – the Denmark Strait (you learn something new every day on Google) looked, from the green-type presentation method, that it was close to freezing over on the 14th. It looks like there is less ice there now (even on the links you so kindly posted). I realize that the satellite sensor has major problems.
I was wondering when was the last time the Denmark Strait froze over – 5, 10, 20 years ago (or does it freeze over every year) ?? If it froze over this year, and this was the first time in a long while, I think it would be a nice sound-byte for the unwashed masses, although I doubt that the Guardian would have it as a headline.
Drew (09:08:33) :
“Assuming that the energy emitted from the radar was placed on the surface of the ice, it would likely pick up the reflection as well since both sonar and radar operate in the RF spectrum.”
No. Sonar operates in the audible portion of the electromagnetic spectrum – but not in the RF. My question is, does the radar reflection return from the ocean floor or the water directly beneath the ice?