The Guardian has this article up today:
The claim was this:
“for the first time, the new edition of the (atlas) has had to erase 15% of Greenland’s once permanent ice cover – turning an area the size of the United Kingdom and Ireland ‘green’ and ice-free.”
…
“This is concrete evidence of how climate change is altering the face of the planet forever – and doing so at an alarming and accelerating rate.”
The Guardian article says this about the recently released atlas:
“But a spokeswoman for Times Atlas defended the 15% figure and the new map. “We are the best there is. We are confident of the data we have used and of the cartography. We use data supplied by the US Snow and Ice Data Centre (NSIDC) in Boulder, Colorado.”
I wrote to NSIDC to confirm this, my regular contact Dr. Walt Meier was out of the office, but Dr. Julienne Stroeve responded with this statement:
Statement from NSIDC regarding the Times Atlas citing NSIDC as the source of its information on Greenland:
NSIDC has never released a specific number for Greenland ice loss over the
past decade. However, we archive and distribute several Greenland data sets
and imagery. While it is possible that the Times Atlas obtained data from
NSIDC, they may have made their own interpretation of the data, independent
of advice of NSIDC.
While mass loss in Greenland is significant, and accelerating, the loss of
ice from Greenland is far less than the Times Atlas indicates. People
interested in this topic should refer to the peer-reviewed literature for
the latest published studies estimating ice loss in Greenland.
For further information or questions, contact NSIDC at 303-492-1497 or
###
NSIDC joins the reports on WUWT of the Scott Polar Research Institute and the Danish Meteorological Institute in distancing their organizations from the 15% claim.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
John B
Look at the current version of the same graph at source …
http://ibis.grdl.noaa.gov/SAT/SeaLevelRise/index.php
Perhaps, “rejects” would be better than “rebukes”?
John B:
Sea levels are falling based on the newer satellites measuring sea level: ENVISAT and Jason 2
John B says:
September 19, 2011 at 4:32 pm
Maybe it’s because you’re stuck in 2010 or maybe because you ought to do more than “take a quick look”.
http://www.aviso.oceanobs.com/en/news/ocean-indicators/mean-sea-level/products-images/index.html
(click the time serie button)
http://www.cmar.csiro.au/sealevel/sl_hist_last_15.html
Willem de Lange says:
September 19, 2011 at 4:42 pm
John B
Look at the current version of the same graph at source …
http://ibis.grdl.noaa.gov/SAT/SeaLevelRise/index.php
——————–
Ah, OK.
But hold on, I keep hearing that 30 years (arctic ice loss) isn’t long enough to determine a trend. But hear you are saying what, that about 12 months is? What will you say if/when the next uptick comes along? If it doesn’t, I’ll eat my hat. If it does, will you?
The trouble here is that someone from the Greens or an obscure labor parliamentarian will cite the Atlas and no one in our press are smart enough to question the statement so it becomes fact. The press have more to answer for than either the scientists or the parliamentarians.
15%… pathetic. Why couldn’t they go directly for the real thing?
C’mon, John B…it’s not that hard.
Very slo-o-o-o-wly now…
“I….was….wrong.”
It’s good for the soul…really.
“stuck in 2010”. Love it! Sea level rise is just so last year. And maybe next year, too…
This is Eastern Greenland. Not a map but reality:
It is a flight from Nerlerit Inaat Airport to Kulusuk over the eastern area of Greenland which the atlas shows as brown. It is both beautiful and very very white.
Julienne Stroeve says:
September 19, 2011 at 4:38 pm
That means in the 12 year period from 1999 through 2011 that the Times Atlas analysed, meltwater from the Greenland ice sheet has contributed roughly 3 mm to global sea level rise – not one meter.
=============================================================
So Greenland added 1/10th of an inch to sea level rise in 12 years……
…and sea levels started falling…..and CU added .3mm/yr…which is 3.6mm for the 12 years…to try and make it back up…
…and sea levels are still falling
http://www.real-science.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/67mkut.gif
God, we have a leak……………
Yes, I was wrong. I had no idea that anyone could possibly look at just the last 12 months of data and claim they were seeing something significant. How silly of me.
Julienne, Thanks for the links, I’ll have a look at those. 0.3mm/yr seems pretty reasonable given the long term trends. 150GT of water spread out over the area of Greenland gives about 2.46″ average ice loss per year. Seems rather unremarkable given the huge variation in temperatures the island (especially the east coast) has seen over the last few centuries. I’m pretty sure it’s still piling up in the center, so the coasts must be offsetting that somewhat.
Hope to read a few of those tonight.
In my opinion, the Times is certainly within their rights to publish an inaccurate atlas. I won’t buy one or suggest other buy it either; but, people who make reference to it in the future will now know that it is inaccurate and can’t, in general, be trusted (well, as least as far as Greenland is concerned).
Even more remarkable is that the magnitude of the sea level drop is “unprecendented”.
Odd that it escaped your attention.
BTW its looks like one of the GREATEST and EARLIEST increases in NH ice extent to date (DMI records anyway)
http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/icecover.uk.php
So what does this mean?
John B says:
September 19, 2011 at 5:16 pm
Yes, I was wrong. I had no idea that anyone could possibly look at just the last 12 months of data and claim they were seeing something significant. How silly of me
===========================================================
The latest sea level numbers are out, and Envisat shows that the two year long decline is continuing, at a rate of 5mm per year.
Julienne says that Greenland is contributing .25mm/yr, and CU is adding .3mm/yr
http://www.real-science.com/uncategorized/sea-level-continues-historic-decline
http://www.real-science.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/chart_118.png
John B says:
September 19, 2011 at 5:16 pm
> Yes, I was wrong. I had no idea that anyone could possibly look at just the last 12 months of data and claim they were seeing something significant. How silly of me.
I assert that there are many features in climate that need to be studied at several time periods. Short time periods are necessary to study some short term effects, e.g. ENSO, long periods are needed to tease a trend out of noisy data, e.g. the recovery from the little ice age.
The decade scale change in Greenland’s climate disclosed by ice cores means that there are some aspects of Greenland’s climate that merit relative short sample periods.
Hmm. I went looking for the Editorial Board at http://www.timesatlas.com but didn’t find it. Perhaps atlases don’t have editorial boards, thought there ought to be some group that decides which maps go in and which don’t. I was just wondering if there was a familiar name on the board.
You’d think someone would do some verification before putting out a map with such a big change. Perhaps it’s just another example of data showing warming/melting is accepted as must be true and hence doesn’t need fact checking.
It’ll be interesting to see where this ends up.
Ric Werme says:
September 19, 2011 at 5:39 pm
I assert that there are many features in climate that need to be studied at several time periods.
====================================================================
and I assert that nothing is “normal” where we are right now……..
How can anyone look at this, and put that little “normal” line right at the top…….
http://climatechangedownunder.files.wordpress.com/2011/06/ice-core-data.jpg
Somewhat surprisingly, the BBC’s Richard Black has written a remarkably straight-forward spin-free story on this issue:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-14969399
This story comes several days after the Time’s Atlas’ claim was made on BBC World during an interview with a Time’s spokeswoman, a claim then accepted without challenge by the BBC interviewer.
Curiously, the Time’s Atlas is a subsidiary of HarpersCollins which is in turn is owned by Rupert Murdoch’s News Corporation the owner of Fox News.
Vincent Guerrini PhD says:
September 19, 2011 at 5:34 pm
I’m guessing it means the Mpembe effect
Oops!
The Ministry of Truth has spoken! Therefore, it is! They said 15%, therefore, it is 15%! /sarc
John B says:
September 19, 2011 at 5:16 pm
“Yes, I was wrong. I had no idea that anyone could possibly look at just the last 12 months of data and claim they were seeing something significant. How silly of me.”
So you can look at 2 years of actual observational data, showing a sea level fall which is clearly impossible if the ice on Greenland is melting at the claimed rate, and you see nothing significant?
Perhaps you would find yet another model run more significant than reality?