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.
I note that there is a Wikipedia article on Scoresby Sund, right in the middle of the controversial area, average annual temperature, about 18 degrees F and precipitation total, about 14 inches.
Nice pictures.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scoresby_Sund
I think we should send the Times Atlas cartographers on a field trip.
Dear Mr Watts and Dr. Stroeve, Thank you…I was given extra credits 🙂 🙂
Matt, from what I’ve read in the scientific literature, since about 1992 there has been an estimated total of 2500 Gt of mass lost from Greenland. Quite a bit of this happened from speed-up of ice discharge from the outlet glaciers, with an increase of 30% observed between 2000 and 2005 alone (e.g. Moon and Joghin, 2008; Luckman et al., 2006; Stearns and Hamilton, 2007). Today it seems that mass loss is just about equally split between ice discharge and surface ablation and subsequent runoff (Shepherd and Wingham, 2007; van den Broeke et al., 2009).
As to how long it will take the melt the entire ice sheet…that would require an assumption on how the mass loss rates will continue into the future, something we don’t know. I wouldn’t expect the mass loss rates to remain constant however.
Louis Hooffstetter says:
September 20, 2011 at 6:28 am
Louis, it does indeed appear that they did this without any consultation from anyone at NSIDC. It seems they used an ice thickness map that we distribute and ignored the caveats clearly stated with that data set (see: http://nsidc.org/data/docs/daac/nsidc0092_greenland_ice_thickness.gd.html and scroll to “usage guidance”). That is most unfortunate. It does highlight however the importance of understanding the limitations of any particular data set and the conclusions that can be drawn from that data.
intrepid_wanders says:
September 19, 2011 at 10:27 pm
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)”?
Intrepid, that’s a good question and I’m afraid I do not know the answer to that question. It’s a bit outside my area of expertise and I’m not 100% up-to-date on ice core analysis studies. I would expect that snow drifts introduce “noise” in the ice core records, as well as other processes such as sublimation and ice flow. Dr. Richard Alley would be the one to talk to for more information.
Also, note though that an obstacle on the ice sheet, such as an aircraft, or my tent, will be buried faster because of the way snow drifts accumulate around an obstacle…
Dear Dr. Stroeve,
Wouldn’t the plane landing 235 feet below the now accumulated ice mean it was warmer in 1944?
I’m pretty good at science 🙂 As is some of my friends.
What advice can you give for someone who likes the environmental sciences i.e. climate etc – but is afraid of the politicization of science?
There are some in climate science – that seem…hmmm more than just nasty.
Kim, it’s not that simple. The plane may have crashed in the accumulation region of the ice sheet (I didn’t check the location of the crash), or in a region with strong katabatic winds that transport snow from the higher elevations down the ice sheet.
If you like environmental science then I say you should study it. Climate science is about understanding the Earth-atmosphere-ocean processes, and it’s fascinating work. There are always going to be a few nasty folks in every field, I don’t think it has anything to do with climate science.
There is a book on amazon called “how to lie with maps”, worth a look.
R
Delingpole helpfully chimes in ☼ ☺
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100105854/times-atlas-to-print-new-world-map-without-tuvalu-maldives-manhattan-etc/
“What do you guys think?”
No, they live in an echo chamber.
But they will endlessly argue the validity of crap from that bastion of truth the Murdock Media empire.
I am NOT a global cooling, err, global warming, err, climate change advocate.
1. Do not poop where you eat. Let’s make the most REASONABLE reduction in pollution possible, BUT must be fact based.
2. Would any invest their retirement nest egg in the “Global Climate Change” company based upon the “facts” that are given? If you would not, then use simple common sense.
3. The Health Hazards of not going Nuclear by Petre Beckman cites science facts. Nuclear power is a great mid term alternative to increasing coal power.
4. Solar is a great alternative if you don’t mind paying 2-3 times more for your power. That’s why it’s a great option in Germany. Wind turbines now reveal significant aviary animal death rates.
5. Let private industry spearhead research. If any company developed an energy production system that that was significantly less polluting and had cost savings they would make massive profits, millions times more than oil companies could bribe them to keep it secret. (sarcasm)
6. Global Climate Change advocates should set an example, not constantly produce far more waste than the average consumer in their socioeconomic peer group. And yes, Global Climate Change advocacy is a very profitable “profession”, rather than having to do real work. (ok, my bias)
7. In the end-make changes you can easily, efficiently and cost effectively do, pollute less, recycle, cycle (consume) less and use common (or uncommon as it were) sense.
I’m pretty conservative, so we conserve, minimize pollution and have a “carbon footprint” about half what our “eco minded” friends do.