Lakes For Sale, Partially Thawed, N=20

Guest Post By Willis Eschenbach

Anthony pointed out the selling of overhyped claims of the “dramatic thinning” of Arctic ice here. The title of the underlying scientific study is much more prosaic, Response of ice cover on shallow lakes of the North Slope of Alaska to contemporary climate conditions (1950–2011): radar remote-sensing and numerical modeling data analysis.  (PDF). To their credit, the authors make no such claims of drama in their text, which is generally quite appropriately restrained.

Here is their complete “dramatic” dataset of the lakes around Barrow, Alaska, the northernmost point in the US:

percentage barrow lakes partially thawedFigure 1. Percentage of lakes in the low-lying tundra around Barrow, Alaska that are partially thawed in late April, 1992-2011. Photo Source.

It’s an interesting study. They noted that partially thawed lakes look very different on radar than when the same lakes are frozen solid. As a result, they’ve collected solid data that is not affected by urban warming. So … what’s not to like in the study? Let me start with what is to like in the study.

I do like the accuracy of the measurements. It’s an interesting metric, with very objective criteria. I like that they listed the data in their paper, and showed photos for each of the years. I like that they didn’t try to project the results out to 2080.

What I didn’t like is where their study went from there. After collecting all that great data, they immediately sent out for that perennial favorite, a global climate model … not my style at all.

So rather than pointing out that their study is models all the way down, I figured I’d just show the kind of analysis that I would do if I were handed the lake thawing data.

First thing I’d need for the analysis? MORE DATA. Piles and piles of data. So I went out and I dug up two datasets—Barrow temperature, and Barrow snow depths. I started with just the temperature, but it turns out that the correlation between temperature and the lake thawing isn’t all that good. It doesn’t explain much, the best correlation is with temperatures in December, 4 months prior to the thawing, at a correlation of 0.68. However, at least it gives a good idea of what’s been going on, because we have good records clear back to 1920.

how cold is winter in point barrowFigure 2. Winter temperatures in Point Barrow (pale blue line) and the 17 year Gaussian average of the data. Photo source http://www.panoramio.com/photo/63484316

I note in passing that Barrow has a well-documented Urban Heat Island that is at its strongest in winter … and despite that, the 1930s and 1940s both had warmer winters than the last decade. I also note in this context of winter-business-as-usual that the study says:

Climate-driven changes have significantly impacted high-latitude environments over recent decades, changes that are predicted to continue or even accelerate in the near future as projected by global climate models …

… but I digress.

So the next obvious suspect for a correlation with the lake thawingis the snow depth. It’s an odd fact of nature that snow is a good insulator. It both slows down heat transfer by insulating the surface, and it keeps the wind from contacting the ice.

So I looked at the average snow depth data (scroll down to “Custom Monthly Listing” in sidebar) … but it’s not all that good at emulating the ice thawing either—in fact it’s worse. With snow depth, the best correlation with average snow depth is only 0.51, again with December coming out on top. So, having investigated single variables to try to emulate the lake thawing, I turned to the combination of snow depth and temperature … not much luck there either. In fact, the only way I could get a good correlation was to use the combination of the Nov-Dec-Jan average temperature, and the December snow depth. This gave me a correlation of 0.81, and a p-value of 0.001 … which turns out to be just barely significant. Here’s the emulation:

emulation barrow lake thawing shortFigure 3. Emulation of Barrow lake thawing. Observations (thick red line) compares well with the emulation (thin green line). Correlation is 0.81, p-value is .0010.

Now … why did I say that a p-value of 0.001 is “barely significant”, when the usual level is a p-value of 0.05? Well … because I looked at so many possibilities before finding what I sought. All up, I looked at maybe 40 possibilities before finding this one. If you want to establish significance at the level of a p-value of 0.05, and you look at 40 datasets before finding it, you need to find something with a p-value less than 1-10(LOG(0.95)/N, where N is the number of datasets you looked at. For N=40, that gives a required p-value of better than 0.0013 … so with a p-value of 0.0010, my emulation just made it under the wire.

Next, I looked at what that same emulation would look like over the whole period 1950-2013 for which we have records, and not just the period 1992-2011 of the study (the “N=20” of the title). Figure 4 shows that result.

emulation barrow lake thawing longFigure 4. Exactly as in Figure 3, but covering the entire period of record.

OK … not a lot going on there. Now, those who follow my work know that I’m quite skeptical of this kind of modeling, particularly with such a short record. What I do to test that is first to find a model with an acceptable p-value. Then I take a look at both the emulation shown above, along with the same emulation using just the first half of the data to fit the parameters, and then the same thing using just the second half of the data. Figure 5 shows that result:

emulation barrow lake thawing long plusFigure 5. As in Figure 4, but showing the emulation based solely on the first half of the data (light blue), and that based solely on the second half (dark blue)

As emulations go, in my experience that’s not bad. The general shape of the emulation is well maintained, and neither of the two half-data emulations go far off of the rails, as is all too common with this type of analysis.

So that’s how I’d analyze the data, at least to begin with. My conclusions?

Well, my first conclusion has nothing to do with the lakes. It has to do with Figure 2, which shows that there is nothing out of the ordinary happening to Barrow winter temperatures. So whatever you might want to blame the lake thawing on, it’s not the local temperature. It’s hasn’t much changed over almost a century, it just goes up for a while and then down for a while.

The second conclusion is that the changes in the lake thawing dates over the period of study are not “dramatic”. In fact, they are boringly mundane. The only thing “dramatic” is the press release, which is no surprise.

The third conclusion is that I wouldn’t trust my emulation of lake thawing all that far … the problem is that with  N=20, we have so little data that any conclusions and any emulations will be fraught with uncertainty. Heck, look at Figure 1 … up until a few years before the end of the data there was not even much trend. It’s just too short to conclude much of anything.

Next, I wouldn’t trust their “CLIMo Lake Ice Model” much further than I’d trust my emulation above. Again, the underlying problem is lack of data … but to that you have to add the unknown performance of the CLIMo model.

Finally, while the authors were restrained in their study, they cut loose in their quotes for the press release, viz:

“We’ve found that the thickness of the ice has decreased tremendously in response to climate warming in the region,” said lead author Cristina Surdu, a PhD student of Professor Claude Duguay in Waterloo’s Department of Geography and Environmental Management. “When we saw the actual numbers we were shocked at how dramatic the change has been. It’s basically more than a foot of ice by the end of winter.”

and

“Prior to starting our analysis, we were expecting to find a decline in ice thickness and grounded ice based on our examination of temperature and precipitation records of the past five decades from the Barrow meteorological station,” said Surdu, “At the end of the analysis, when looking at trend analysis results, we were stunned to observe such a dramatic ice decline during a period of only 20 years.”

I see nothing “stunning” or “dramatic” in their results at all. Overall, it’s quite ho-hum.

My warmest regards to all, it’s bucketing down rain here after a long period of drought, life is good.

w.

AS USUAL … if you disagree with me or anyone, please quote the exact words you disagree with, and give us your objection to those words. That way, we can all be clear exactly what it is you are objecting to.

DATA AND CODE: Primary sources given above, plus it’s all in my Excel spreadsheet, Barrow Lake Thawing …

Get notified when a new post is published.
Subscribe today!
0 0 votes
Article Rating
64 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Coach Springer
February 6, 2014 7:33 am

I’ve missed the part where the study established “… tremendously in response to climate warming in the region.” The study found that or they just said that?
Isn’t the conclusion that the thawing is inconsistent with the past temperature and thawing record and that the “tremendous” part is apparently due to other unidentified factors? A difference in measuring techniques of thawing, an unidentified thawing factor or a combination? It seems like a complete misstatement of findings by the researchers – something they feel entitled to do if the data has been carefully collected.. That does not entitle misstatement of the conclusions.

Clay Marley
February 6, 2014 8:09 am

What I really appreciate about Willis’ technical posts is that he includes the data or spreadsheets for us to examine. In fact one of the reasons I come to WUWT is to improve my techniques for data analysis.
I have a question Willis, about the spreadsheet. In this and in another post you are using a “gaussian.xla” add-in. I’d like to understand how this works. Do you have any references for it? I assume it is performing a Gaussian smoothing with the number of regression points given as an argument, but it appears to have only one data point as an input. Are the coefficients calculated? Or is it a recursive implementation? etc.
Thanks

February 6, 2014 8:17 am

Thanks Willis. Looks like normal weather cycles. So what else is new. Good to see a study that gets off the main roads and can look at remote sites.
I have seen too many studies on melting permafrost – which was clearly due to mechanical actives by animals and human – mostly human. I have designed things to go over, on, and under the surface in permafrost areas which is sometimes a misnomer since most work is in the active layer and the active layer and its structure can have large effects on everything in permafrost areas including lakes. Sporadic permafrost extends all the way down to 40 degrees of latitude. For 15 years I worked in areas with sporadic and continuous permafrost. We even wrote a paper or two in the official multinational effort Design Manual for Cold Climate Utilities Delivery a long long time ago when we were first starting to recognize how to mitigate installations in permafrost areas (!970’s). I had the opportunity to fly over many lakes in the North West Territories and Northern Saskatchewan and observe their behaviour and beautiful fall freeze up patterns.
The approach used to study these lakes by satellite is interesting, but there are many, many variables that are obvious to someone who has worked in the north and studied multi-season ground temperature profiles and the latency involved over a period of years along with the incredible variation in freeze up in adjacent groups of lakes. It is far from uniform.
I very much liked your mathematical approach. I believe I have seen others in both northern studies and economic studies (could be wrong). A few years ago I used something similar to predict company revenues and margins based on forecasts provided from a number of sources which could be provided a probability of being over, under of close based on previous performance and current economic conditions and projected economic conditions related to our company’s business, It worked quite well as long as you screened the GI to prevent GO.
The Arctic is a beautiful and interesting place to work and live. We have tons to learn in a multidimensional world where things are not always what they seem on the surface:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Vertical_Temperature_Profile_in_Permafrost_(English_Text).jpg
Thanks for your discussion paper. Lots of good information there for those who can apply it.
I know you are more of a southern ocean guy but you might get a kick out of reading some of a design manual for “Cold Climate Utilities Delivery”. This one is from 1979 and I would have to say it is probably a better effort for the time than some of our climate models. but it was worked on by people from northern countries every year for many years and was based on empirical evidence. Somewhere I have a copy of a manual from 10 years later and the improvements were incredible. Someday, Climate studies will get there. Mind you, this manual was a meant to be a practical document based on the best available technology of the time and written by people much smarter than but like me, they were actually building things, and discovering what did and didn’t work well. It may be a fun peruse for a limited few:
http://nepis.epa.gov/Exe/ZyNET.exe/20008A08.txt?ZyActionD=ZyDocument&Client=EPA&Index=1976%20Thru%201980&Docs=&Query=&Time=&EndTime=&SearchMethod=1&TocRestrict=n&Toc=&TocEntry=&QField=&QFieldYear=&QFieldMonth=&QFieldDay=&UseQField=&IntQFieldOp=0&ExtQFieldOp=0&XmlQuery=&File=D%3A%5CZYFILES%5CINDEX%20DATA%5C76THRU80%5CTXT%5C00000001%5C20008A08.txt&User=ANONYMOUS&Password=anonymous&SortMethod=h%7C-&MaximumDocuments=1&FuzzyDegree=0&ImageQuality=r75g8/r75g8/x150y150g16/i425&Display=p%7Cf&DefSeekPage=x&SearchBack=ZyActionL&Back=ZyActionS&BackDesc=Results%20page&MaximumPages=1&ZyEntry=1
The EPA and Environment Canada did some good work 30 years ago.

Don K
February 6, 2014 8:21 am

First of all, congratulations on acknowledging the affect on probability of looking at numerous possible correlations. Lots of very smart people have made a total botch of that.– parapsychologist J.B.Rhine may be the best known example. Is your computation correct? I have no idea but if it’s wrong I doubt it’s very wrong. FWIW, I would probably have gone with p/40 instead — which, given my general record with statistical things, probably indicates you are likely to be right. I suspect that the answer may also depend on whether one assumes that all the possible correlations examined are independent of each other.
I think there may be some serious thinking going on about that in the area of medical research which seems to be far worse than climatology when it comes to institutionalizing dubious statistical notions. A lot of folks seem to be taking John Ioannidis opinions in Why Most Published Research Findings are Wrong seriously http://www.plosmedicine.org/article/info%3Adoi/10.1371/journal.pmed.0020124 If nothing else the guy certainly knows how to pick a title. If I stumble onto anything illuminating on probabilitiy adjustment in the future, I’ll send you an eMail or something.
One other point about the lake study that bothered me is that I’m sure it’s not intentional, but the Alaskan Spring breakup in 2013 was notoriously late. I can’t help but wonder what the paper would have looked like if had chanced to include 2013.

February 6, 2014 9:07 am

Well it certainly is a coincidence that this study focuses on Barrow when it just so happens that this location has by far the most warming since 1977 than any other location. The amount of warming since 1977 for Barrow has been 4.6F while the bulk has been in autumn at 9.9F.
The Alaska average has been 0.8F of cooling since 1977. And they accuse skeptics of cherry picking. See how Barrow stands out in this table: http://oldclimate.gi.alaska.edu/ClimTrends/Change/7712Change.html
By the way, that page was exceptionally hard to find. It is buried. A few years ago it was on the Alaska Climate Research Center main website but I guess it didn’t look good visually. By comparison, using the 1976-77 climate shift and going back a few more years highlights warming and obscures the overall cooling since 1977. Do a side by side with the link I gave above and this current one: http://oldclimate.gi.alaska.edu/ClimTrends/Change/7712Change.html
Quite a visual difference don’t you think?

February 6, 2014 9:08 am
BobN
February 6, 2014 9:11 am

Willis – What were the correlation results like for March and April temps to %lakes partially thawed? Seems to me that would have been the first thing to check, not NDJ temps or snowfall amounts. Agree that n=20 is a pretty low number to base much on.

Jon
February 6, 2014 9:14 am

“steveta_uk says:
February 6, 2014 at 3:01 am
How do they define “partially thawed”
Easy – radar can spot water, and it’s quite a different signature from ice. So if there is water, then it’s partially thawed.
“less ice will form over the winter and therefore there is less to melt in the spring”
Not relevant in this case, as they are only taking about the totally frozen lakes.”
So if there is rainwater on the ice in the spring the radar will consider it as thawed?

Steve from Rockwood
February 6, 2014 9:17 am

Snow insulation was a good catch. Nice analysis Willis. Bill Thomson’s discussion on ice cracks and the non-linear relationship between temperature and ice formation is interesting.
My take is they took a period of rapid warming and blamed it on a correlation with several lakes not freezing to bottom. As the length of observation is increased (as Willis shows) the trend is not significant and well within natural variability. The problem is – you could never publish that in anything other than a blog.
Record ice thickness on my pond this year.

Chuck Nolan
February 6, 2014 9:39 am

Willis
What about wind?
I’m amazed at the wind patterns around the globe.
http://earth.nullschool.net/#current/wind/isobaric/1000hPa/orthographic=-118.89,64.29,695
cn

Chuck Nolan
February 6, 2014 9:42 am

AussiejB says:
February 6, 2014 at 12:57 am
I really do not wish to make a comment i just with to be able to make comments on the posts here i have failed to find anywhere to find a place to register
I find this pretty poor
[Reply: You do not need to register. ~ mod.]
—————————————————
That’s true he doesn’t need to register but, he could improve his tone.
cn

February 6, 2014 10:03 am

From “Don K says: February 6, 2014 at 8:21 am
“One other point about the lake study that bothered me is that I’m sure it’s not intentional, but the Alaskan Spring breakup in 2013 was notoriously late. I can’t help but wonder what the paper would have looked like if had chanced to include 2013.”
With a Pinatubo start date and 2013 end date omission, your confidence in being “…sure it’s not intentional” appears a bit misplaced. Add the “dramatic thinning” hype, and then delete the words “a bit” from the previous sentence!

LesH
February 6, 2014 12:37 pm

There is another metric, less rigorous perhaps than radar reflections. It is the opening and closing dates for the ice roads that truckers use all over the north. Most of those cross lakes, and without sufficient ice, no road. It is the lakes that determine the opening and closing dates. The opening and closing dates, the loads allowed, all of this is indirect evidence as to ice thickness. It should give an interesting comparison to the barrow lakes radar data.
Unfortunately I do not have the time to follow through on this idea, I would hope that someone else does.
lh

Crispin in Waterloo
February 6, 2014 1:02 pm

Robertson
>>“Prior to starting our analysis, we were expecting to find a decline in ice…”
>“…seek, and Ye shall find…”
Exactly. But so what? Thinner ice can be the result of warmer water underneath. Maybe it is summer temperature-days that give the hint. There might be a drought in early winter causing thicker ice or ‘wet weather’ delivering a lot more snow than usual. Ice is notoriously unpredictable even watching the very same lake.
I just read that the Black Sea ice froze 45 feet thick one winter long ago. I find that alarming.
I do not find some periodic earlier melting of lake ice alarming at all. It just means more fish production because of better conditions. When it cycles colder production will drop again.

February 6, 2014 1:13 pm

Willis Eschenbach said February 6, 2014 at 10:23 am

We get lots of folks with strange beliefs here. We have pressureheads, we have cyclomaniacs, and we have volcanicians … Rud, take a look at Figure 2. See the “W” shaped drop in temperature around 1990?
Well, the big drop was in 1989-1990, which is the year of the bottom left point of the “W”, at just cooler than -28°C. 1991 and 1992 were about the same, 1991 was a bit warmer than 1990, and 1992 just very slightly warmer than 1990.

So… that “W”, is it the signature of warming, or is it the signature of Willis? 😉
Nice work BTW.

DonV
February 6, 2014 1:20 pm

Willis, I admire your restraint in this critical review of their paper. I would have been a lot more negative! IMHO your acceptance of their “data” as valid and useful means you also accepted their “assumptions”. My first criticism of the data validity would have centered on the dates of each radar image taken. How can they seriously compare “percent of Barrow lakes patially thawed” (the equivalent of “average temperature anomaly”?) when the radar images from which this data is gleaned are not even taken on the same date each year. The data ranged all the way from April 8th all the way to May 6th! – a full month of variability. The very first assumption was that you can equally compare lake thaw data year to year when that data is a single data point each year spanning out over a month! Sorry, but again IMHO I call BS! The most useful description for this kind of analysis is GI=GO. Going into a study with an admitted bias – “ie. we expected to see” certain results! – can’t help but produce results that are suspect without double blinding the data. Had the pilots taken the data in a manner that pushed the date back sequentially further and further towards April 1st, I suspect they would have gotten a completely different trend, but their “model” would have included an “adjustment” that would have given them the results they expected.
On a side note: What happens to fish or any “life” for that matter in a lake that freezes all the way to the bottom? Also the water at the bottom must be extremely salty, or at the very least have an interesting annual sediment trend of the lakes dissolvable salts and metals for that year.

February 6, 2014 1:39 pm

DonV said February 6, 2014 at 1:20 pm

On a side note: What happens to fish or any “life” for that matter in a lake that freezes all the way to the bottom? Also the water at the bottom must be extremely salty, or at the very least have an interesting annual sediment trend of the lakes dissolvable salts and metals for that year.

Glycoproteins are “fish antifreeze” in Antarctic notothenioids and Arctic cod. If there are fish in them thar lakes, one imagines they also possess these proteins. It’s a fairly new area of research despite the obvious applicability for the manufacture of food, or food-like substances at least.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12653993
Behind a paywall I’m afraid.

george e. smith
February 6, 2014 4:41 pm

And when the water freezes all the way to the bottom or not, I first wonder whether the bottom to ice top distance has stayed the same or not.
I used to walk to school barefoot in the winter time (short pants too), and would break the ice in the puddles with my toes. Some puddles were shallow and froze to the bottom, while some were deeper, and only had a thin ice skin. The deeper puddles break easier than the shallow ones, being just water supported.

george e. smith
February 6, 2014 4:49 pm

“””””……Chuck Nolan says:
February 6, 2014 at 9:42 am
AussiejB says:
February 6, 2014 at 12:57 am
I really do not wish to make a comment i just with to be able to make comments on the posts here i have failed to find anywhere to find a place to register
I find this pretty poor
[Reply: You do not need to register. ~ mod.]
—————————————————
That’s true he doesn’t need to register but, he could improve his tone.
cn……”””””
Ruffians and Barbarians; probably heathens too; we have to put up with them as neighbors; they’re all we’ve got !!

LesH
February 6, 2014 5:29 pm

As mentioned above, there may be another metric for judging ice thickness on Arctic bodies of water. Here are some sample databases on the opening and closing dates for different Arctic roads and crossings starting in 1983-84. Others are available at the first link. Can’t you hear them begging to be analyzed?
http://www.dot.gov.nt.ca/_live/pages/wpPages/roadConditions.aspx
http://www.dot.gov.nt.ca/_live/pages/wpPages/Open_Close_Dates_Ice_Bridges.aspx
http://www.dot.gov.nt.ca/_live/pages/wpPages/Open_Close_Date_Winter_Roads.aspx
willis….
willis….
analyze me…