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.
Slashdot points out that a sciencemag update suggests that maybe the atlas misinterpreted a map of the central ice, which omitted glaciers near the coast.
http://science.slashdot.org/story/11/09/19/1847255/Atlas-Takes-Heat-For-Melting-Glacier-Claim
“Now glaciologists are left trying to figure out how not understate the importance of the extent glacial ice melt, while at the same time correcting the error.”
Oh, yes, must be careful to not commit heresy!
So in the ‘warmista’ tradition, I’m looking forward to the resignation of Time’s editor and its editorial committee, and the recall and pulping of the atlases. Anything less would be unacceptable.
Streetcred says:
September 19, 2011 at 7:04 pm
“So in the ‘warmista’ tradition, I’m looking forward to the resignation of Time’s editor and its editorial committee, and the recall and pulping of the atlases. Anything less would be unacceptable.”
________________________________________________________
No letter of apology to Kevin Trenberth?
A commenter here http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/warmists_rub_out_the_ice/
Said this: “I have the 1997 edition of The Times Atlas of the World. I have just examined the map of Greenland and it is identical to the one shown above.
I don’t think the publishers have redrawn the map at all. They are just pretending that they’ve got it right by quoting the alarmists’ figures.”
Wonder if this can be verified?
The globalonyologists are starting to sound like my kids in the backseat of the car. “DID NOT!…DID TOO!”, etc…etc. At which point, if we were in the car and I was trying to drive safely over the din of their arguing, I used a fly swatter on em.
So here ya go…
WHUMP WHAP WHAP!!!!
Pamela, not sure you understand what happened with the Times Atlas. No scientists appear to have been consulted in their “new” map of Greenland. Even a graduate student would have caught the mistake they made.
Julienne Stroeve says: “oops, that recent reference on the mass loss is supposed to be Rignot et al., 2011 (Rignot, E., I. Velicogna, M. R. van den Broeke, A. Monaghan, and J. Lenaerts, 2011…”
Thank you for correcting the reference.
BTW…here is the abstract from the Rignot et al. (2011) paper:
Ice sheet mass balance estimates have improved substantially in recent years using a variety of techniques, over different time periods, and at various levels of spatial detail. Considerable disparity remains between these estimates due to the inherent uncertainties of each method, the lack of detailed comparison between independent estimates, and the effect of temporal modulations in ice sheet surface mass balance. Here, we present a consistent record of mass balance for the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets over the past two decades, validated by the comparison of two independent techniques over the last 8 years: one differencing perimeter loss from net accumulation, and one using a dense time series of time-variable gravity. We find excellent agreement between the two techniques for absolute mass loss and acceleration of mass loss. In 2006, the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets experienced a combined mass loss of 475 ± 158 Gt/yr, equivalent to 1.3 ± 0.4 mm/yr sea level rise. Notably, the acceleration in ice sheet loss over the last 18 years was 21.9 ± 1 Gt/yr2 for Greenland and 14.5 ± 2 Gt/yr2 for Antarctica, for a combined total of 36.3 ± 2 Gt/yr2. This acceleration is 3 times larger than for mountain glaciers and ice caps (12 ± 6 Gt/yr2). If this trend continues, ice sheets will be the dominant contributor to sea level rise in the 21st century
Julienne Stroeve says: September 19, 2011 at 8:17 pm
Dr. Stroeve, your comments and observations are very much appreciated here. Despite Dr. Trenberth’s “Ah Hah!” moment regarding his missing heat, the very recent recorded decline in sea hight suggests that something is very wrong: the models, the measurements, the understanding. Keep up the effort.
Dear Dr. Stroeve,
Could you please comment on this. http://p38assn.org/glacier-girl-recovery.htm
Julienne. Thank you for conversing with us sceptics!
IanW, I & others have long maintained that even if a global temperature were possible to be measured, it is the wrong metric!
It takes no account of energy where a small, maybe immeasurable, change in a humid area may make a measurable change in a less humid area.
DaveE
Miss Rhode Island is real and she is happening now. Maybe she can grow some tomatoes up there as a feature for next year’s edition.
Kim, thanks for the link. I was not aware that they recovered a P-38 from the ice sheet. Quite an endeavor for sure! I have used steam drills (similar concept as what they used to retrieve the plane pieces) to drill holes in the ice to secure towers. I’m somewhat surprised that much of the aircraft survived, given the fact that the ice sheet is constantly flowing. That the aircraft was buried nearly 300 ft deep is not too surprising. One time when I was camped on the ice sheet for 3 weeks, my tent sunk by 6 ft during that time. I had to dig out every morning, not so much from new snowfall but from wind-deposited snow.
The NSIDC has indeed found discrepancies in the data and will in due course modify the maps. However, the difference in the old and new maps will be nowhere near 15% as can be seen from the explanation given by NSIDC under the heading “Known Problems with the Data”.
In June 2001, NSIDC discovered errors in the data values for ‘surface_5km’ (DEM). Because the ice thickness grid is subtracted from the DEM to produce the bedrock elevation grid, the incorrect DEM data resulted in inconsistent values for ‘thick_5km’ (ice thickness grid) and ‘bed_5km’ (bedrock elevation grid). NSIDC obtained corrected copies of all three grid files from Bamber to ensure consistency and accuracy among all grids.
Future Modifications and Plans
Bamber plans to update the ice thickness and bedrock grids with newly acquired radar echo sounding data within the next two to three years. The new data should improve coverage and accuracy, particularly near the margins. Also, he will update the DEM with ICESat data about 6-12 months after the launch of ICESat. This will only make a marginal improvement in accuracy over most of the ice sheet but will, in particular, improve the accuracy in the marginal areas on steeper slopes, as well as some of the non-ice covered areas that currently only have digitized cartographic coverage.
Julienne Stroeve says:
September 19, 2011 at 8:17 pm
BTW…here is the abstract from the Rignot et al. (2011) paper:
Ice sheet mass balance estimates have …………….. In 2006, the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets experienced a combined mass loss of 475 ± 158 Gt/yr, equivalent to 1.3 ± 0.4 mm/yr sea level rise. Notably, the acceleration in ice sheet loss over the last 18 years was 21.9 ± 1 Gt/yr2 for Greenland and 14.5 ± 2 Gt/yr2 for Antarctica, for a combined total of 36.3 ± 2 Gt/yr2. This acceleration is 3 times larger than for mountain glaciers and ice caps (12 ± 6 Gt/yr2). If this trend continues, ice sheets will be the dominant contributor to sea level rise in the 21st century.
=================================================================
Dr. Stroeve,
Have you guys figured out how much water would stay in both land masses if the ice were to ever melt? Most of Greenland’s ice sits on top of land 300 meters below sea level. And the lowest point in Antarctica is within the Bentley Subglacial Trench, which reaches ~ 2,555 meters below sea level.
So, even if it all melts, obviously a substantial volume of water will remain on both. Given ice occupies more space………
Dear Dr. Stroeve,
Pretty cool huh?
But what I was wondering…If 235 feet of snow / ice covered it since 1944. Well, my Grandpa was a Marine on those islands in the Pacific in 1944. Some say are now gonna sink. WUWT please?
Thank you
Did Atlas check if the permafrost at Hvalsey has melted yet?
Ya know, like it was back in the MWP when the Vikings dug the graves there.
Hi James, I’m not sure. It’s not something I’ve personally looked into, nor have I read anything that calculated how much water would remain on land if all the ice were to melt. Of course one would expect lakes to form if all the ice were to melt because so much of the land is below sea level. I can imagine how bad the mosquitoes would be in summer…they are quite bad as it is along the margins of the ice sheet in summer! 🙂
http://www.dmi.dk/dmi/times_atlas_tegner_indlandsisen_for_lille
The Danish Meteorological Institute (DMI) protested the 16th of September
Kim, the mass balance of an ice sheet (or glacier) is governed by accumulation minus mass loss from runoff and ice discharge (as well as sublimation). But it’s not only snowfall that results in local mass accumulation. Greenland is a windy place, and the winds that flow down the ice sheet are constantly transporting snow (thus the reason why in 3 weeks I had already sunk 6 ft into the ice). My first time in Greenland we spent a couple of days digging out the semi-permanent huts at Swiss Camp, and after a few days, the huts would be buried again under 8 ft of snow because of snow-drift. So an obstacle on the ice sheet, such as an aircraft could be completely buried in one year (or less). Thus, it’s not at all surprising it was found that far beneath the ice.
@Julienne Stroeve
As others have said, welcome and thank you for your input.
Are you aware that HarperCollins are fingering your organisation for their mistake?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/earthnews/8774623/Times-Atlas-makes-absurd-claims-about-shrinking-of-Greenland-ice-sheet.html
“A spokesman for HarperCollins said its new map was based on information provided by the US National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC).
The spokesman said: “Since The Times Comprehensive Atlas of the World 10th Edition, in 1999, we have had to erase 15 per cent of Greenland’s once permanent ice sheet.
“This is based on information provided by the much respected and widely-cited National Snow and Ice Data Center (Atlas of the Cryosphere, Boulder, Colorado USA)”
A good wigging is in order, IMHO.
Oppsss…My Great Grandpa was on those islands. My Grandpa was a Marine in Vietnam
Dear Dr. Stroeve, Thank you
Hector, yes we are aware and we’re trying to get figure out exactly what they did – what data source they used, what processing they did, etc. Obviously we are not too happy about it (and nor or any the glaciologists who study Greenland). I would have thought if they found such a large difference in the extent of the ice sheet that they may have talked to some of the glaciologists who study Greenland to get their feedback before publishing the map. Or have talked to NSIDC aobut their results, or at the very least have done some literature review to see if their map was consistent with other results of changes in the Greenland mass balance. From what I understand, it appears they used the 5-km ice thickness product produced by Dr. Bamber (and distributed by NSIDC) to make their new map but ignored the caveats in the data set as mentioned above by Frank White (http://nsidc.org/data/docs/daac/nsidc0092_greenland_ice_thickness.gd.html#usageguide).
They just forgot the decimal point (0.15% loss versus 15% loss). It could happen to anyone. 😉