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/
Here is another paper on the problems with measuring sea ice thickness. It mentions that ice breaker ships records record ice in areas where it is thin, since that is where the ship will want to go, and indeed is directed to go for safety reasons, the path of least resistance. So ship logs probably underestimate ice thickness.
http://www.epic.noaa.gov/SEARCH/obs/workshop/reports/ricther-menge.pdf
And another. Posits several theories in the year 2000 that still have validity now but, as we have seen, have been overrun by the politicized theory of global warming. It just gets more press time and has more bleeding potential in the story line than natural cycles do.
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v408/n6813/full/408634a0.html
How about using a helicopter next time?
They detect water and get a ball park estimate of its quantity, they do not “measure” ice thickness on Mars from the Odyssey satellite Gamma Ray Spectrometer.
http://mars.jpl.nasa.gov/odyssey/technology/grs.html
They are just calculating the amount of water present in the top layers of soil, (as ice due to temperatures) not measuring an ice layer sitting on a pool of water. Two totally different problems.
Larry
philincalifornia,
The Denmark straight has been nowhere near freezing over this year, for better resolution go here :-
http://www.iup.physik.uni-bremen.de:8084/amsr/arctic_AMSRE_nic.png
Regards
Andy
I am sorry to piggy-back this onto a related article, but I would love to know if anyone can shed some light on the meaning of this:
“Kiwis solve global warming riddle”
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10562595
Eric,
Thanks for the very informative post. You learn something new every day, after removing your blinkers. 😉
Arn Riewe (18:24:44) :
…“The Arctic sea ice melt is a disaster for the polar bears,” according to Kassie Siegel, staff attorney for the Center for Biological Diversity. “They are dependent on the Arctic sea ice for all of their essential behaviors, and as the ice melts and global warming transforms the Arctic, polar bears are starving, drowning, even resorting to cannibalism because they don’t have access to their usual food sources.”…
Over the course of fifty or so years, i’ve lost count of the number of documentries I have seen about polar bears. They all mention the vulnerability of the mother bear and her cubs to predation by male polar bears. Female bears and their cubs are, and always have been, a “normal food source” for male polar bears. I think brown bears also exibit the same behavior.
Eric and Tallbloke
If the ice measurements are as good as you suggest, (great post) surely we wouldnt currently have three people risking their lives in -40C temperatures, trudging through dangerous terrain pulling a sled with a radar on it, and taking physical measurments by drilling through the ice with an Augur. Are they being duped or is the science not as settled as is being suggested 🙂
Tonyb
Arn Riewe (18:24:44) :
“Polar bears resort to cannibalism as Arctic ice shrinks”, Marsha Walton, CNN.
and as the ice melts and global warming transforms the Arctic, polar bears are starving, drowning, even resorting to cannibalism because they don’t have access to their usual food sources.”…
Later… “In one documented 2004 incident in northern Alaska, a male bear broke into a female’s den and killed her.”
That has got to be one of the most ignorant AGW claims to date. Male bears (griz, black, brown, teddy, etc.) are known to kill females and young all the time. Heck, even male humans do! It has nothing to do with ice or warming. Did Marsha mention that the “den” was an icehole? I can’t stomach CNN.
Steve Schapel,
Meaning of what? That when the ocean warms several degrees it will release enough CO2 to bring the concentration in the atmosphere to 400 ppm?
I thought that was very old knowledge.
From the “Kiwis solve global warming riddle” link Steve Schapel gave:
“The drill team, led by Victoria University Antarctic research centre director Tim Naish, found seas were warm enough to melt a large chunk of Antarctica’s ice when atmospheric CO2 was only slightly higher than it is today.
The findings from the $30 million Antarctic Geological Drilling (Andrill) project were published in the journal Nature yesterday and may be used to help the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) update its predictions of sea level rise.”
Wow. We could have told them that, and saved them the $30 mil. The warming comes first, then C02 goes up. Thus, the warming caused the C02 to rise, (mostly from off-gassing of the oceans), not the other way round.
Nice to hear the IPCC may be “updating” (increasing the alarmism level of) their “predictions”. Since getting the science right is obviously such a big concern for them.
Airdrop
Friday, 20 Mar 09, climate
From http://www.seablogger.com/?p=13098
On Wednesday a relief flight set out from Ottawa, Canada to air-drop supplies for three foolish trekkers who reached the North Pole a bit early. The trio meant to document and publicize the supposed calamity of climate change in the Arctic. They set an early schedule because they believed the disappearing ice would make travel impossible as the season advanced. Now they are hunkered in their tent amid blizzards and minus forty temperatures. They will be lucky to survive, and even luckier if they escape with all their fingers and toes.
http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5ikCGhKLMGDwCv15YPvnDOBGoFizw
TonyB (04:22:24) :
“Eric and Tallbloke
If the ice measurements are as good as you suggest, (great post) surely we wouldnt currently have three people risking their lives in -40C temperatures, trudging through dangerous terrain pulling a sled with a radar on it, and taking physical measurments by drilling through the ice with an Augur. Are they being duped or is the science not as settled as is being suggested :)”
I don’t really know what internal motivation the explorers have to risk their lives. I am only pointing out that the remote sensing measurements could do with some calibration, and the purpose of the expedition as described in the news article was not to measure the ice thickness as a function of time as Goddard implied with his argument, but rather to provide some calibration for the measurements. Whether it will fulfill its purpose remains to be seen.
I don’t pretend to have the competence and knowledge to understand whether the current expedition is the best way to do that. I only wanted to clarify that the grounds for criticism used by Steven Goddard, and the comparision with buoys is a false argument.
hotrod (22:47:54) :
What Are you talking about?
I am talking about the MARSIS radar on the Mars Express.
“The MARSIS radar is an instrument on the European Space Agency’s Mars Express orbiter. The thickness of the layered deposits was determined by measuring the time delay between radar echoes from the surface and those from the lower boundary, or “bed”, of the deposits. The radar data indicate that the deposit, larger than Texas in area, is more than 3.7 kilometers (2.3 miles) thick in places, and that the material consists of nearly pure water ice with only a small component of dust.”
In one documented 2004 incident in northern Alaska, a male bear broke into a female’s den and killed her.”
Did she have the door locked?… too bad she didn’t have an alarm system installed… the Mounties always get their bear…
Many years ago growing up on a farm, it was common knowledge that tomcats would kill a newborn litter of kittens. Since the queen cat usually nested or denned up in the hay mow, no break- in was required. And that was before the days that AGW had been identified.
It is now so mixed up that I am aware of one dairy herd that had a cow that would kill every newborn calf that she had access to. If the calf was unfortunate enough to get out of the calving pen and into the freestall, where all cows had access, this mother cow would “stomp” on the baby calves and kill them.
“Infanticide has been found in many species, including humans, primates, felines, canids, cetaceans, rodents, insects and fish.”
http://www.ratbehavior.org/infanticide.htm
It would have been helpful if you had stated which specific method you were asking for a commenting on. As I mentioned in my post, I was talking about the Odyssey satellite Gamma Ray Spectrometer. The MARSIS ground penetrating radar cannot probe for water through an active ionosphere like we have on earth, since its signals would be reflected off the ionized layers.
One of the links I posted above discusses a similar chirped radar system but it operates at VHF frequencies not in the very low end of the VLF band.
http://www.space.com/businesstechnology/technology/marsis_radar_030430.html
As I mentioned above, totally different problem and situation on Mars, than trying to accurately measure a very thin ice and snow layer floating on ice here on Earth.
I am just an observer and have no relationship with these programs, so I can only go by what I can glean from a Google search on the topic, just like you. I am sure the designers are far better qualified than I to “explain” why they are using the systems that they are. The most likely is cost and availability.
Larry
It seems that the ice season this year does not want to end…..
http://www.nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/daily_images/N_timeseries.png
The really telling measure of when the ice finally starts to decline this year. If the peak is delayed that would to my mind be a strong indicator that cooling is taking a foot hold in the arctic. Based on the 1979-2000 average on that graph we are just now passing the point that on average sea ice extent graph slope starts to go negative.
The next couple weeks will be very interesting to watch.
Larry
I know this thread is reaching its interest limit, but I couldn’t help making a few observations: (Appologies in advance if I’ve violated posting protocol, Snip away)
Ric Werme and philincalifornia
The island connected to Greenland by ice is Svalbard, not Iceland. Iceland is between the southern tip of Greenland and southern Scandinavia.
Eric (1st Eric)
You ar right of course. In the present age, the purpose of science IS to prove, by any means necessary, the hypotheses of those who FUND the effort. When you know you are right, there is no reason to waste funds on efforts that may make you look foolish. There is no hypocrisy here. If denialists want to control scientific conclusions, let them first control speech, thought, and political discourse as you, so skillfully, have.
Aggie, Aggie, Aggie,
On the fiscal discipline of the Obama administration. Yes, and one day pigs will fly without the support of the Air Force Equivalent of a Gulf Stream G5. Bernie Madoff should have been so smart to think up ‘Cap & Trade”. If you were to take all of the rich people’s money, where would your salary come from next year when there are no longer any rich people (I assume you are a government worker).
TonyB
Your nearby neighbor is a moron. As for his 900km trek, given Currious’s report of progress between 1.44 and 1.5km/day, the team should reach their goal (North Pole) sometime in late September, 2011… posthumously, of course, in the form of Polar Bear Scat.
This has been a very fun Saturday afternoon reading the discussions of the scientific validity if the Catlin epic, particularly the links to the Monty Python clips, which proved to be among the more lucid. Thank you Anthony, as usual, for making climate science fun as well as informative.
Chris Booker is giving Anthony more press in England…
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/5028380/The-Global-Warming-Three-are-on-thin-ice.html
tallbloke (02:33:34) :
Dorlomin
“decline of the age and percentage of the multiyear ice…”
??How does multiyear ice decline in age??
The oldest ice melts and is replaced by younger ice.
I’m looking forward to this autumn’s ice extent minimum figures to help shut up some of the nonsense talked about arctic ice.
So am I.
Note to ModeratorWhy was my last post on this subject censored?
More drivel from CNN:
” As the ice thins, more sunlight passes through, further warming the ocean and accelerating the effects of climate change.
This feedback loop could have catastrophic consequences for people living in coastal areas and many animal species, according to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a United Nations governing body on climate change. ”
So, measuring ice thickness at it’s annual maximum will give us new reason to fear. What’s that? The ice we measured last week shifted 50 km South. Oh well, we can get Steig to infill the data.
They seem to do a lot of “driveling” 😉 I commented on that here as well: http://whatcatastrophe.com/drupal/node/6