Reposted from “Haunting the Library” (well worth a bookmark), another clueless journalist combined with an artist/activist makes The Guardian look pretty darned stupid. Five minutes or less of checking would have prevented this blunder.
Guardian Goes “Full Stupid” on Arctic Ice, Contradicts Itself.
The Guardian managed to outdo itself in it’s latest foray into global warming, claiming that Arctic sea ice has declined by three quarters in the last three decades. In a series of “factoids” following an interview with pop celebrity and latest Greenpeace spokesperson for the Arctic ice, Jarvis Cocker, Lucy Seigle, the Guardian’s environment reporter, informed readers that:
Of the Arctic sea ice, 75% has been lost over the past 30 years. Last year saw sea-ice levels plummet to the second-lowest since records began. It is estimated that the North Pole could be ice-free in the summer within the next 10-20 years.
However, the problem with this was not just it’s total departure from both reality and common sense, but the fact that an article in the Guardian only a couple of weeks beforehand had pointed out that this simply isn’t the case.
Quoting the Met Office’s Chief Scientist, Julia Sligo, the article noted that such claims were simply “not credible” –
She also said that suggestions the volume of sea ice had already declined by 75% already were not credible. “We know there is something [happening on the thinning of sea ice] but it’s not as dramatic as those numbers suggest.”
The problem, she explained, was that researchers did not know the thickness of Arctic sea ice with any confidence.
The Guardian. Met Office: Arctic Sea Ice Loss Linked to Drier, Colder UK Winters.
In fact, as the NSIDC points out, the extent of Arctic sea ice is very close to the average for the last three decades, not down by 75% as The Guardian’s environment reporter seems to be confused about:
Overview of Conditions
Arctic sea ice extent in April 2012 averaged 14.73 million square kilometers (5.69 million square miles). Because of the very slow rate of ice loss through the last half of March and the first three weeks of April, ice extent averaged for April ranked close to average out of 34 years of satellite data.
Someone should really help them out over at the Guardian’s environment section. Do you have an hour or two to spare, some basic common sense, plenty of paper and some crayons?
==============================================================
Here’s the proof that Arctic Sea Ice has not declined 75% in 30 years, this graph of Arctic Sea Ice Extent from good buddy Dr. Peter Gleick using NSIDC data. Here is his original from his Huffington post article where he’s beating up Apollo 17 astronaut Dr. Harrison Schmidt for comparing 1989 and 2009 20 year differences.
I’ve extended that graph of Gleick’s down to the zero line, and annotated the 1980 and 2010 year values and the 75% loss of 1980 value line (3.125) for reference. As you can see, there’s a loooonnnng way to go from 12.5 million square kilometers in 1980 to 3.125 million square kilometers in 2010 to make a 75% loss in 30 years.
The Guardian is only off by 7.675 million square kilometers…close enough for journo work I suppose.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Yes, I think the Guardian is wrong. I think they are misinterpreting this calculation, which says that the minimum ice volume in Sep 2011 was 75% down on the maximum for 1979.
There is lot of nonsense in climate related issues, like ocean surfface temperatures. How it is possible that ice covered sea area has temperature above normal? Example eastern Gereenland coast http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/NEWIMAGES/arctic.seaice.color.000.png
http://weather.unisys.com/surface/sst_anom.gif
One of theese pictures shows something wrong.
The guardian has long ceased to be a serious newspaper, the organ of the left with its plethora of science illiterate and jejune journalists. Hacks, who are a mirror on the Marxist ethos which pervades the so called British chatterati. Unfortunately, though its readership is small and pedantic – its sway is great.
In other words it is a comic of the left in Britain, this comic story of ridiculous guff, is typical copy.
I would posit, that the starting point for Arctic sea ice in 1979 was to high and only now are we at the sea ice mean, if one looks further back into the past [and not so long ago] the ice has fluctuated much below the 80-2010 parameters [true – it has to be said anecdotal evidence] – so what’s the big deal? As Joe Bastardi likes to tell us, the sea ice mean is in equilibrium, imho Joe’s always right;)
BTW, its Julia Slingo @ur momisugly the Met Office -http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/our-scientists/senior-scientists/julia-slingo
At last a graph that has zero and shows the true extent of the ice loss. It gives you an idea how an anomoly can mislead the uneducated.
I can get 69% by comparing the peak in Winter 1979 to the minimum in summer 2011 so the Grauniad must be even stupider than that.
Maybe not so ridiculous…
Depends on your measure for “sea ice”.
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2011/09/07/313873/arctic-death-spiral-continues-sea-ice-volume-hits-record-low-for-second-straight-year/?mobile=nc
Summer minimum volume has dropped from 16.9Km3 in 1979 to 4.3kM3 in 2011 (yes, there are error bars). That’s 75% loss, near as dammit. So all you can really fault them on is not being clear that “estimates of summer minimum sea ice volume” have dropped by 75% in 30 years.
REPLY:Perhaps, but Four things. 1. PIOMAS is a model. 2. PIOMAS is not an actual measurement. 3. Saying a model predicts a 75% loss is no better than NASA’s Jay Zwally saying the Arctic could be nearly ice free by 2012. (See the sidebar and link above it) 4. Slingo said the 75% loss for volume isn’t supported.
So, no matter how you look at it, extent or volume, it doesn’t work. – Anthony
Is comparing extent to volume the same thing? Not an expert and don’t even play one on TV, but coverage and volume seem to be comparing apples and oranges to me. Not that I think the arctic is screaming, just wondering how the two relate.
There are studies showing older thicker ice is melting faster than new ice in recent years. Of course, given that sea ice extent has been increasing over the last 5 years, the logical corollary of this fact is the new ice is melting slower than old ice.
The likely reason is that old ice has more particulates embedded in it, and with increased solar insolation (which I believe to be the main cause of the post 1970s sea ice melt) these particulates become concentrated on the surface as the ice melts (and sublimates) from above, reducing the ice’s albedo.
You can demonstrate this at home. On a below freezing day, put two ice cubes in the sun. Sprinkle something dark on one of them, and you will find it melts/sublimates a lot faster.
“Pointman says:
June 3, 2012 at 1:43 am
Last financial year end, the Guardian was running at a loss of £25 million pounds. With reporting like that, I look forward to next year’s numbers.
Pointman”.
I seem to recollect that someone asserted some time ago that things would look grimmer for The Guardian was it not for the large number of papers taken by the BBC every day.
JohnB says:
June 3, 2012 at 3:54 am
Maybe not so ridiculous…
Depends on your measure for “sea ice”.
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2011/09/07/313873/arctic-death-spiral-continues-sea-ice-volume-hits-record-low-for-second-straight-year/?mobile=nc
Summer minimum volume has dropped from 16.9Km3 in 1979 to 4.3kM3 in 2011 (yes, there are error bars). That’s 75% loss, near as dammit. So all you can really fault them on is not being clear that “estimates of summer minimum sea ice volume” have dropped by 75% in 30 years.
————————————————————————————————————————
That piomass model has nothing to do with reality and truth. Anybody can make that kind model with laptop, but has it any value?
The old Seadog. says:
June 3, 2012 at 1:00 am
I’d regularly check that site to make sure that particlular embarrassment stays posted on it, it’s likely to be misplaced permanently at the R S!
As for the Grauniad, Lucy Siegle is as lefty greeny as they come, she never checks her facts especially when they don’t fit her view. Another favourite is Polly Toynbe, who was once humiliated by Peter Hitchins on BBC’s Question Time because she proceeded to lecture everyone on the dangers of Global Warming & we must all stop flying abroad or pay more taxes, when she was identified as a chief traveller toing & froing to her “pad” in Tuscony for the Summer, oh how lucky she is to be able to affrord such luxury!!! AND Greenpeace tells lies, they admitted as much two years ago.
Olavi says:
June 3, 2012 at 4:15 am
That piomass model has nothing to do with reality and truth. Anybody can make that kind model with laptop, but has it any value?
————————–
Translation: “I don’t like the numbers it produces”
The rapidly declining Graundiad is approaching its demise even faster than I am.
WUWT? http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/icecover.uk.php its into 15 june already!
REPLY: I’m waiting for an email response from DMI – Anthony
Facts don’t matter to the Guardian, or its readers.
It is the message that counts.
On this basis the Guardian is bang on target.
The “Useful Idiots”, who are now in places of power and influence will ensure the Guardian’s
message is promoted and implemented.
Someone needs to sue the paper for misrepresentation.
JohnB says:
June 3, 2012 at 3:54 am
Maybe not so ridiculous…
Depends on your measure for “sea ice”.
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2011/09/07/313873/arctic-death-spiral-continues-sea-ice-volume-hits-record-low-for-second-straight-year/?mobile=nc
Summer minimum volume has dropped from 16.9Km3 in 1979 to 4.3kM3 in 2011 (yes, there are error bars). That’s 75% loss, near as dammit. So all you can really fault them on is not being clear that “estimates of summer minimum sea ice volume” have dropped by 75% in 30 years.
———————————————————————————-
From the NANSEN database:
Aug-2011 Arctic sea-ice minimum: 3.819 km2
Sep-1979 Arctic sea-ice minimum: 6.339 km2
3.819/6.339 = 0.60. So roughly 40% less minimum ice “extent” compared to 1979.
In discussing ice volume, how do they reliably estimate volume from the satellite data? Also let’s not forget that from a winter high of 14.6 km2 to a summer low of 6.34 km2 (1979), almost 60% of Arctic ice is “new” ice every year.
I trhink the DMI site http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/icecover.uk.php has been hacked by AGW zealots
this is more like reality
http://arctic-roos.org/observations/satellite-data/sea-ice/observation_images/ssmi_ice_area.png
JohnB says:
June 3, 2012 at 3:54 am
Maybe not so ridiculous…
Depends on your measure for “sea ice”.
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2011/09/07/313873/arctic-death-spiral-continues-sea-ice-volume-hits-record-low-for-second-straight-year/?mobile=nc
Summer minimum volume has dropped from 16.9Km3 in 1979 to 4.3kM3 in 2011 (yes, there are error bars). That’s 75% loss, near as dammit. So all you can really fault them on is not being clear that “estimates of summer minimum sea ice volume” have dropped by 75% in 30 years.
Think Progress? That’s about as reliable and objective a source as the Grauniad, I mean Guardian, is. Romm should work for the Guardian, it would be a perfect fit. Wait, maybe Lucy Siegle is a nom de plume of Joe Romm!
Is this not great news??
If we have already lost 75% of the ice, then we have suffered 75% of the consequences. 75% of the albedo change, and not much warming. 75% of the ocean rise and no perceptible acceleration in sea level rise.
All praise to Gaia folks! We are through most of it, and it has been a non event, phew!
We can stop worrying now and get back to using cheap energy…
James
There is one death spiral I am aware of and that’s the Guardian’s circulation figures. Heh, heh.
Glenn says:
June 3, 2012 at 1:07 am
There must be some mistake, since: “The Guardian has built this unrivalled team in the belief that environmental issues, and in particular global warming, is the defining issue of our age, combining politics, economics and social justice,” said James Randerson…
Saying they’re an “unrivalled team” would be appropriate enough — after all, Curly, Larry and Moe are three decades a-gone…
In fairness, that sea ice area has not dropped 75% is not proof the volume has dropped 75%. Yes, Julia Sligo also noted that it’s highly unlikely volume has dropped 75%, good. However, saying the sea ice area is proof is over the top, in my view. I would rather see a statement like “Perhaps they are talking about area, then, Nope, not that either.”
REPLY: The original article http://www.guardian.co.uk/music/2012/jun/02/jarvis-cocker-arctic-oil-environment does not contain any discussion of ice volume. I double checked.
The bullet point:
■ Of the Arctic sea ice, 75% has been lost over the past 30 years. Last year saw sea-ice levels plummet to the second-lowest since records began. It is estimated that the North Pole could be ice-free in the summer within the next 10-20 years.
Doesn’t either. Only Slingo’s discussion does. And, I was addressing this:
In fact, as the NSIDC points out, the extent of Arctic sea ice is very close to the average for the last three decades, not down by 75% as The Guardian’s environment reporter seems to be confused about
-Anthony
If everyone who reads WUWT took just one alarmist for a tour of the Sea Ice Reference page at WUWT, there would be a lot of confused or ex-alarmists around. If anyone can consider the informatiom on that one page and find a sea ice “death spiral”, I would love to know how. Help an alarmist out, but be gentle, the first time they get “facts” in the head it may hurt a little. Some reddening around the ears may occur.
The Guardian, read by idiots, written by fools….
Alan the Brit.
Apologies for correcting you but that was Richard Littlejohn…He did an excellent job of it too.
Polly didn’t really give a sh*t anyway….do as I say and all that…
Gonna take a lot more than just an hour or two to get those guys straight….