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.
Julienne Stroeve says:
September 19, 2011 at 9:23 pm
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! 🙂
=================================================
Yes, from my time spent in Alaska as soon as spring break up hit, out they’d come! I still have nightmares about huge swarms mosquitoes swooping in to carry me off and…………. I never imagined that one could see a swarm of mosquitoes from a distance.
At any rate, its too bad about the fact that we haven’t quantified how much water would remain on the land. I was hoping to share some cheerful news with Dr. Hansen and perhaps alleviate some of his anxieties. It has the poor man stressed something awful. He’s engaged in some rather bizarre behavior lately for a man of his position, and I’m concerned for his mental health! 🙂
Thanks Doc, its always a pleasure,
James
Dr. Stroeve,
Thank you for your comments on this matter. Many of us are sincerely appreciative of your contribution and perspective on this issue at hand. Your descriptions and explanations will have a better venue than previous venues.
My question follows haikyu Kim’s, “Does the ice accumulation from the wind and sleet affect the boundary layers for core samples?” or “Does the 3wk of 6ft of wind accumulation ice become discriminaned from a normal snowfall (i.e. determining a heavy precipitation from a heavy wind year)”?
Julienne Stroeve: “Currently, Greenland is losing mass at about a rate of 150 Gt per year, or about one third of a millimetre of sea level rise per year. 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.”
Can Dr Stroeve confirm that ice loss of 150 Gt per year is equivalent to about 0.6% per century? Total Greenland ice = 2.85m km3 = 2.57m Gt. at this rate it will take 17,133 years to melt all of Greenland’s ice.
So you are telling me the deposit I just made on the plot of land in Greenland is likely lost?
Seriously now, this post and comments, especially by Dr. Stroeve, is fascinating. So, I went to the NSIDC ‘scientists’ page where I did not find a photo of her in Ice-garb. WUWT? Care to point us to a few research photos, Dr. J?
Yet more proof that the CAGW hoax is a combination of Phrenology, Phlogiston, Eugenics and Lysenkoism.
20 years of propaganda has created a mindset that will be very difficult to shift.
Thanks Al, you are now in the same league as Stalin but without the deaths.
Give it time though as we head into the new little ice age.
Ice loss “accelerating”? Oh my.
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/gistemp_station.py?id=431042500000&data_set=1&num_neighbors=1
Greenland is colder than in the 1940s.
Regarding sea level fall across the last year+. WUWT reports via NASA: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/08/24/nasa-notes-sea-level-is-falling-in-press-release-but-calls-it-a-pothole-on-road-to-higher-seas/ , the gist of which is that heavy rainfall on continental areas has transferred the “missing” water out of the ocean and onto land. If so, estimated ice loss from Greenland is not inconsistent with sea level fall across short time periods.
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.”
Problem being John is that the models show it going up! Once again an abject fail! ITs a bugger when reality trumps GiGO huh!
My the “Gates” are coming thick and fast now!
Interstellar Bill says:
September 19, 2011 at 2:56 pm
As do all uber-Lefties, the Warmistas double-down on their lies when called out on them.
Perhaps copies of the bogus Atlas will become collector’s items, souvenirs of the Global Warming Hoax. “Look children, at how crazy they were back then, just as the Great Cold was ramping up.”
Sorry Bill, this was more about right wing financiers using dodgy information to make money from climate change knowing that catastrophe will always sell better than facts. While it may be old hippies who promote climate change, it’s the right wing financiers who are making the money. Remember, it’s not the hippy crew flying into Cancun for conferences on private jets.
The Times Atlas publishers are now trying a bit of a spin claiming they only whitened the areas with ice>500m thick. That’s bollocks as they say in England but still…for all we know they misunderstood, copied and embellished a Wikipedia ice thickness map..
I blogged about that here : http://omniclimate.wordpress.com/2011/09/20/times-atlas-suicide-by-wikipedia/
I was amazed to read in my newspaper that the Atlas was wrong and over exaggerated the effects of global warming. I was expecting them to just print that the greenland icecap had melted 15% over the last 12 years due to man made global warming.
Can anyone explain how even the most alarmist forecasts of future warming, ie up to 8°C, could possibly melt the kilometres thick Greenland or Antarctic ice sheets that are at -31°C and -51°C respectively?
They are wriggling!!!!!
““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.”
Maurizio Morabito has an interesting take on Times Atlas over at
http://omniclimate.wordpress.com/
What a proud boast. The best there is!
Sorry but the best maps I have come across, as an RAF navigator, were the US Pilotage charts as used by the US Air Force. Better than the topographical charts produced by the RAF. At lease these both told the truth.
Global sea level shifts, graph URL thanks to John M
http://www.aviso.oceanobs.com/en/news/ocean-indicators/mean-sea-level/products-images/index.html
Do I detect a Coriolis effect? At least, it looks as if there is something that has strong correlation to the direction of Earth’s rotation. East coasts sinking, west coasts rising overall…??
“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.”
Is this a redefining of ‘permanent’?
Gareth Phillips says:
September 20, 2011 at 12:13 am
While it may be old hippies who promote climate change, it’s the right wing financiers who are making the money.
Right, the Commies certainly don’t know how to make money, but they sure do know how to appropriate it and redistribute it to themselves!
The publishers of the Times Comprehensive Atlas of the World have released this statement today regarding the erroneous statement about Greenland ice in the press release for the new edition:
“The Times Atlas is renowned for its authority and we do our utmost to maintain that reputation. In compiling the content of the atlas, we consult experts in order to depict the world as accurately as possible. For the launch of the latest edition of the atlas (The Times Comprehensive Atlas of the World, 13th edition), we issued a press release which unfortunately has been misleading with regard to the Greenland statistics. We came to these statistics by comparing the extent of the ice cap between the 10th and 13th editions (1999 vs 2011) of the atlas. The conclusion that was drawn from this, that 15% of Greenland’s once permanent ice cover has had to be erased, was highlighted in the press release not in the Atlas itself. This was done without consulting the scientific community and was incorrect. We apologize for this and will seek the advice of scientists on any future public statements. We stand by the accuracy of the maps in this and all other editions of The Times Atlas.”
http://www.harpercollins.co.uk/News_and_Events/News/Pages/Clarification-on-The-Times-Comprehensive-Atlas-of-the-World-13th-edition.aspx
I too applaud Dr. Julienne Stroeve for trying to maintain some level of scientific honesty at the NSIDC. But two questions remain unanswered: 1) Did the Atlas Times really print this map “independent of advice of NSIDC”? I don’t believe it. and 2): Why is Dr. Stroeve having to explain how “data supplied by the NSIDC” was erroneously misinterpreted to show 15% of Greenland’s Ice has disappeared? The buck stops with NSIDC Director “Dr. Death Spiral”, Mark Serreze. He the ne who should step-up and explain how his organization allowed this ‘mis-communication’ to happen. Since Dr. Stroeve is doing Serreze’s job for him, I suggest she be appointed Director of the NSIDC!
Sea level fell by 10 mms over the past 2 years instead of increasing by 6 mms.
Greenland had a warm year in 2010 and a warm winter 2011 but has had a cool summer melt season in 2011. Did the ice mass balance increase in the last year given the sea level reduction?
Extra rain could have fallen on land in the last 2 years instead but 8.0 extra mms/yr of rain falling on land and not making it to the ocean is a significant change (well only 0.8%) but the numbers had been very stable prior to this.
Vincent Guerrini PhD says:
September 19, 2011 at 5:34 pm
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?
—
Personally, I don’t attach any meaning to short term variations, other than the arctic ice-melt is freezing up again very nicely, as I predicted 🙂 – emphasis on “again”.
Of more immediate interest to me is if the cold snap we’re seeing will persist and we’ll get early snow here in the Northeastern US?
Currently the Times Atlas does not even show the correct coastline of Greenland even though it has been known since the 70’s and is shown here.
Sorry for broken link.
Link text
Here.
What do you guys think?
Is there a correlation between La Nina years and a short term trend in sea level?
I expect with the next El Nino, that sea level rise will resume.
Also, if all the ice in Greenlands ice cap melts, wouldn’t you expect some isostatic bedrock rebound? Just that I think that the “Greenland is a bowl, so even if all the ice melted, it would stay in place theory” is a crock.
Even now, as the map Berényi Péter posted shows, areas as low as 50-500 meters exist which would allow for most of the melt water to reach the sea.
The very fact that someone would even discuss claim of a 15% Greenland ice loss is incredible. It’s a well-known figure that by melting all of Greenland’s ice, the sea level jumps by 7 meters or so. So if 15% were 15% of the volume – and 15% of the area wouldn’t be too far from that because the thickness may be approximated by a uniform function – then the sea level would have to jump by a meter. The actual jump of the sea level in a decade is about 3 centimeters which is 30 times lower (and not all of those 3 centimeters are due to Greenland).
Some people have lost common sense if they ever had one. What is the dumping ground where the 15% claim was collected is one question. But another question is why every single person around the atlas etc. failed to see that this is complete gibberish.