NASA ICESat shows ice thinning. Report ignores where it is thicker.
When looking at arctic ice reports, the most important thing to remember is that we have only been studying the arctic since the end of 1978. That's only three decades, which is a small data set to truly identify a trend for long-term climate. We must look closely at the reports themselves, such as the most recent one from NASA/JPL. The analysis does take time, but that could also mean old data is shown, ignoring current trends. Also, many of these ice reports are released in the summer, when it is 'expected' to be hot, and ice in the arctic is at its lowest point all year. So gloabal warming or climate change aside, the time of year can be misleading.
The latest report from NASA on arctic sea ice states that between 2004 and 2008 (see the comparrison images and scale in the slide show below), the ice has shrunk by 57%, comparing it to the size of Lake Michigan. NASA scientist Jay Zwally says global warming is to blame. The image here does show a region of increased ice thickness in that same time frame, but this is not mentioned. Most coverage of this report fails to state that just this winter the National Snow and Ice Data Center had to come clean that its remote sensors were failing. It had UNDERESTIMATED ice about the size of California:
The problem arose from a malfunction of the satellite sensor we use for our daily sea ice products. Upon further investigation, we discovered that starting around early January, an error known as sensor drift caused a slowly growing underestimation of Arctic sea ice extent. The underestimation reached approximately 500,000 square kilometers (193,000 square miles) by mid-February. Sensor drift, although infrequent, does occasionally occur and it is one of the things that we account for during quality control measures prior to archiving the data.
So, does the NASA report include the bad, missing data? The latest data for June does show a dramatic ice retreat during 2006 and 2007, but a recovery has been seen since then. This recovery is much more significant! Last year, the return of sea ice in the arctic satellite analysis from the University of Illinois Arctic Climate Research Center showed there was no cause for concern. Sea ice levels rebounded at near record levels and, in fact, returned to levels not seen in almost 30 years.
 |
Why is there so much confusion with the data? Is it just spin by one side or both? The charts below do show a trend of reduced ice on average since we have been measuring it, but it also shows that there has been a little rebound. Actually, there has been a few rebounds in the past, which shows that there are other forces at play than just the rise of CO2.
The past two winters have shown a dramatic rebuilding of the arctic sea ice. Of course that will be 'thin' ice because it is new ice. Some of it will melt in the summer, but it does indicate a changing tend. I would focus more on this upcoming winter to see if ice continues to rebuild. That would be good news to focus on, and it should be reported. However, I don't see that happening.
In the perspective of this scientist and many others... 30 years of ice measurements do not represent climate! It is like plotting the high temperatures for a week and using that for the trend of the century. The climate models have indicated that more CO2 will increase the ice melt, but they do not show any stability or recovery. So, do you think the positive aspects are being covered up like Carlin's EPA report, or just ignored?
Comments
Perhaps for a satellite, 30 is the new 40! Seeing thinning ice at the pole but spreading farther out sounds like my hair: Off of my head and down my back. I still remain and optimist and look for any good news I can find. Thanks Tony.
Did you note the thicking ice you circled in the 2008 scan was the result of a big chunk of ice shelf breaking off of the Canada shore and floating out to sea? As this shelf broke up at sea, it also affected measurements of ice extent.
Tony, you have a BSc. You're not a scientist.
I'm sorry - but I do have the impression that you're misreading the NASA images. And since you don't present the scale and explanation of the colors - they readers can't see that. If you check at NASA website (why is it not aloud to post links??) you will see that the colors mark the thickness of the ice - not changes in thickness! Green means in no way that ice has gained in size! But that the ice there is still 2,5 meters thick (blue is close to zero, red up to 5 meters). If you compare all the years, the picture is one of overall melting - with no areas getting thicker! average thickness has decrease from 3.1 meters to 2.4 in 2004 - 2008.
I encourage every reader to check the original data at nasa gov - search for 'icesat'
Richard, I also have a BSc in Meteorology. According to the AMS, I am the station scientist. Passing my CBM exam assured that, and I agree with Tony. Unfortunately I can not speak out blatantly against AGW because it has angered viewers in the past and my management was not happy. I like many others have had to sacrifice my morals for my mortgage. I am glad to see more public figures (TV, private, and political) beginning to speak out.
Holger,
I just made an update to send you and other readers to the slide show for more images. I could not fit them in the article. The plots for 2004 and 2008 are side by side. The region I circled has thicker ice in 2008 than in 2004. The other charts show that the ice is holding much better than the past couple of years.
Aaron- the ice region in the image is too large and too far from the Canadian land mass to account for what you stated.
The side-by-side graphics are good. You can see there is a little thicker ice in the part you circled, but many more areas with really thick ice (red) in 2004 were thinner in 2008.
Also, the trend line for June (-3.3% per decade)is being followed rather well the last 3 years after the 06 and 07 dip. It doesn't look like that downward trend has ended. Also, if 30 years is too short a time period to comment on arctic ice climate, why are you even discussing these 2, 3 and 5 year "trends"?
"When looking at arctic ice reports, the most important thing to remember is that we have only been studying the arctic since the end of 1978. That's only three decades, which is a small data set to truly identify a trend for long-term climate."
I agree and therefore we must be sure to finance the necessary research to build a longer and better record.
".... The analysis does take time, but that could also mean old data is shown, ignoring current trends...."
The point of the NASA news release is that the ANCIENT THICK SUMMER-SURVIVING ICE is vanishing. Sure, each winter the newly-exposed surface waters skim over with a thin layer of fleeting seasonal ice. Your first slide shows this very well. However, that slide presents a serious mistake in thinking: the extent to which newly-exposed surface waters skim over in subzero winter temps with fleeting surface ice is not a "recovery" to the loss of thick ancient ice that has survived many summer seasons.
steve 1
"Also, many of these ice reports are released in the summer, when it is 'expected' to be hot, and ice in the arctic is at its lowest point all year. So gloabal warming or climate change aside, the time of year can be misleading."
Oh bullcrap. Whether a report is "released" in one season or another season has absolutely no connection to the data being reported. A report of winter ice area or winter ice thickness can be released in winter, summer, spring, or fall. Same with summer ice area or summer ice thickness. You either cited this due to an innocent mistake in your thinking or an intentional agenda to make your readers doubt the scientists.
"I would focus more on this upcoming winter to see if ice continues to rebuild. That would be good news to focus on, and it should be reported. However, I don't see that happening. In the perspective of this scientist and many others... 30 years of ice measurements do not represent climate!"
We agree we need to pay for more research. We also agree that there are many things that affect climage, such as changes in earth's orbit and tilt, solar cycles, etc. We happen to be in a convergence of these patterns that emphasize cooling (thus ice forms). In any case, climate is a jagged line of peaks and dips. From carbonate deposits on coral reefs, to tree ring analysis, to isotopic changes in sedimentation, we see a consistent trend of human-caused climate change. Thinking critically about the data helps scientists improve their results. But why say "come clean" when they do that, unless you wish to undercut their credibility? What's in this fight for you?
Steve- You make some good points, but there is nothing in this for me. I endorse renewable energy and 'some' of the green ideas. However I do not support scaring the public into thinking that Global Warming is worse than it is. Sure we have had a warm trend, but we are rounding the curve and heading back to cooler weather. It's been that way for the past decade, but the ocean temperatures lag and so does ice in the process.
The chart does show a steady line down...because that is the average trend.
The 'season' of reports also ties into the media as I have mentioned in the past. However, when ice had made a dramatic recovery it was not widely reported in the past 2 winters. I say recovery because the ice had rebounded faster and much more than anyone expected... close to 1979 levels. That is not past of the AWG Theory.
'Come Clean'- I mentioned that because in the story linked at the bottom about 1979 ice levels, you can see that a barrage of emails to NSIDC forced the issu
OK...I thought I should restate this very clearly: I am ALL for the Green Movement. We should have been doing this a long time ago! However,the debate over why the climate is changing is NOT over. The two issues need to be separate: The scientific debate over climate change on one side, and the Green Movement on the other. Nobody is going to be against finding alternative fuel sources and cleaning up the atmosphere, as long as it's done with economic sensibility.
#1: "Sure we have had a warm trend, but we are rounding the curve and heading back to cooler weather. It's been that way for the past decade"
So when scientists infer conclusions based on a small [ie 30 year] data set, they are misleading, but when you do the same thing with a 10-year data set you are the voice of reason? How do you conclude we are in a cooling trend based on just 10 years, which, incidentally are each hotter than most others on record? Do you agree that we are in a convergence of natural cooling factors that is MASKING THE REALITY of human-caused climate change?
#2 "The 'season' of reports also ties into the media". Please support this.
#3: You seem to claim that fleeting seasonal ice is a sign of correction. It is more plausible to think that newly exposed surface waters skim over in winter. If it skims a lot or a little makes little difference. THE POINT IS THAT ANCIENT SUMMER-SURVIVING ICE IS GOING POOF.
I do respect your concern about scare mongering, Tony. I just think you are trying to swing the pendulum way too far in the other direction. In my view, we have ample scientific results to conclude that whatever the expense of drastic action to reduce our climate impact, in the long run it will be far less than the cost of not doing it.
Tony and TV Weatherman...
Then I'm a scientist, too, with my BSc and a Governor-General's medal for academic excellence. In fact, with courses in physics, chemistry, statistics and oceanography, I probably understand the science of climate change better than most... and certainly better than you do.
The science of climate change is as strong as the science that proves smoking causes cancer. You should head on over to Real Climate to bone up.
Steve keeps scoring point after point.
Cheers.
So their sensors drifted South - that might easily explain any "thinning." Nevermind all the drilling they've been doing this last winter. One does have to wonder what kind of impact man entering into the "experiment" has on it.
Why does this topic always generate such anger? Richard- I am a TV Met with my BSc from Cornell. I studied all the courses you mentioned: physics, chemistry, statistics and oceanography... you left out multi level calculus and FORTRAN programming. Those are basics in my degree so I am sure Tony has that as well in his background. However I also have my CBM from the AMS which clearly states that I am the 'station scientist' with more background knowledge than most. I also taught college level meteorology and am currently developing an online post graduate course. I am not bragging, just qualifying that in my personal development I have become MORE of a skeptic. The long range modeling has been adjusted many times because the real world is not producing the results. Everything weather related is being blamed on AWG like EL Nino last decade, when extremes litter the record books for over a century. The heat of the 1930s does rival that of the 1990s, with a lot less CO2.
One more thing... Why is it OK for a meteorologist to speak out on this topic, only if it supports AWG- like Bob Ryan? But when many of us TV mets do not agree, why are we pushed aside as a joke? Have you read the open letter to Congress from prominent scientists? Have you read Dr. Roy Spenser (who use to be a NASA climatologist)? More recently, Princeton Physicist Dr. William Happer: 'The idea that Congress can stop climate change is just hilarious' - Warns of 'climate change cult'
Declares Congress has been 'badly misinformed' on global warming.
When it was warming in the 1990s and up until 2003, the tipping point theory said no return. Why is the present cooling now seen as a natural mask? Please explain why AWG is now blamed for snow, rain, drought, and the cool summer in the north east and Great Lakes? Can't you step back from the argument and consider that the warming was natural too? Sure we need to clean up pollution, but there are many more variables than CO2 involved.
OK..here's a good analogy: If I look at the 850 mb temp for Today here in Baltimore and it's 21 degrees C. With full sunshine, that could support a High of 94...so I put that in my forecast. Now, if some clouds were to roll in and hold the temps down in the mid 80s, am I right just because the atmosphere had the potential to support 94? No. My forecast should have taken into account cloud cover. It's the same thing with the Climate Models...the forecast was for "run away heating" , and it's just not happening. If...like Steve says...there is "Natural" cooling events happening that are "masking" the CO2 heating...then the climate models should have seen those events and incorporated them into the forecast. The simple fact is that the climate modeling has been wrong over the last few years.
Gentlemen:
Climate models are inaccurate. And they are incredibly useful. See Real Climate or One Blue Marble.
I guess I don't understand why you guys think you're better informed than the 2,400 climate scientists (with PhDs) who worked on the IPCC report. Do you think that you have compelling proof that the National Academies of Science for ALL the world's developed nations are wrong. Why the 1,400 peer-reviewed studies presented at the emergency climate change summit in Copenhagen are flawed.
The warmest decade on record is this one. The second warmest is the 1990s.
For you to suggest otherwise calls into question your understanding of even basic science.
It's very simple. The consequences of doing nothing are immense. If this were a debate about hairloss you guys could say anything and no one would care. Instead we are talking about potential upheaval of the climate systems on which our entire world civilization is predicated. In that context, being a critical thinker who challenges the science is a great thing. But there's two ways to go about that. You can either be a teamplayer who strives to improve the science and the public's understanding, or you can be a naysayer who attacks the public trust. Spin such as "come clean" and equating widespread winter skim ice on newly-exposed surface waters as a natural recovery from losing summer-surviving ice lands on in the latter group. Given the non-zero odds that AWG will cause large social upheaval on a planet with nuclear arms, that's just wrong. I am glad you guys DO talk about the shortcomings in our knowledge. But do it to build the public trust in science, not destroy it.
OK...these are all great points...and I respect everyone's opinion. Steve is right...to do nothing would be stupid. That's why I am all for the green movement, as long as we use economic sensibility. I also know that phrase in itself is subjective...maybe that's what we should be debating. :)
Richard..please review who is actually on the IPCC and how many scientists...with PHDs...have actually come out against this theory. I believe the number that signed that last petition was around 700 or 800.
Tony...
Just FYI; Im a professional writer who works for an environmental publishing company, and I read more than 100 climate change and clean tech stories every day. I also publish a climate change blog.
Honestly, please google the term astroturfing... you'll discover that stories about PhD petitions are released by PR institutes that work for the fossil fuel companies. It's a hoax.
If scientists have reason to dispute climate change, they don't need to sign a petition. They need to publish their research in a peer-reviewed journal. That they haven't yet speaks volumes.
I have actually personally spoken with several Nobel-winning IPCC scientists, and count one as a friend. I know how the IPCC process works (2500 scientific experts were involved). I can also tell you that most climate scientists feel the IPCC Fourth Assessment is flawed... It UNDERestimates the danger.
PS... I'm passionate about this, but not trying to be a offensive. I want to engage smart conservatives, to get them to cross the street on this one issue. Your voices are important.
When High Priest of the Church of Climate Change, Al Gore, decides to debate the topic for which he has dedicated his life's work, I will listen to him.
For someone who has dedicated so much, to NOT be desirable of debates where ever and whenever he can, show me he is incapable of such debate.
Show me any other person who is such an advocate of anything else who has consistently REFUSED multiple times to debate. Any one person will do. ANY???
"2,400 climate scientists (with PhDs) who worked on the IPCC report."
That was a POLITICAL report, not a scientific one.
Richard Levangie, what caused the warming that brought Europe ou tof the Little Ice Age?
What caused the warming that melted the ice sheet that was as far south as present day Pennsylvania around 12000 years ago?
Are humans better off on a cooling planet or a warming one?
This is baloney: "If...like Steve says...there is "Natural" cooling events happening that are "masking" the CO2 heating...then the climate models should have seen those events and incorporated them into the forecast."
I agree that *FUTURE* models "should" include these factors, but you are silly to suggest the early models "should" have done so. Silly, because as you know, or should know, that's not how science works. The first folk get some money and do the initial work. That work leads to interest in funding further work. Later observations come along which yields still more work. We agree, Tony, that we need to study both human and nonhuman factors and the models need to incorporate all of those. My problem with your shtick is that you seem to argue that (a) since we have not yet funded sufficient research to perfect the models, then (b) AWG is necessarily bullcrap. That's where you are undercutting public faith in science to the disservice of your readers and the globe.
Steve...I have personally interviewed one of the IPCC members at NOAA that was responsible for producing the climate modeling FORECASTS that the IPCC reports have been based upon. I know exactly what goes into the model. They have indeed been issuing FORECASTS right from the start...or at least since around 2000...and much of the environmental crisis statements being released to the media are based on these forecasts. I am only stating a simple fact...the forecasts have been wrong in regards to the amount of warming on the planet.
Steve...If you are saying that they should NOT have been making forecasts until the proper funding was provided to perfect the modeling...then I'll agree with that.
"I am only stating a simple fact...the forecasts have been wrong in regards to the amount of warming on the planet."
The word "ONLY" is a lie, as evidenced by the headline on this article which includes the word "deceiving". Careful reading reveals that you ALSO (deceivingly) say: (1) skim ice is necessarily a recovery, (2) Carlin's report is either being "covered up or simpy ignored" when it simply failed peer review, (3) when scientists discover things like sensor drift and fix the data they are "coming clean" as though having been caught doing something naughty. Your use of the word "ONLY" is a lie. Yes, the models are "wrong" in the sense that the science is still young. Why not write to get more funding to improve the models instead of undercutting the public's faith in the science that has been done so far? Unless, of course, you don't want better funding to improve the models. So which is it?
"...they should NOT have been making forecasts until the proper funding was provided to perfect the modeling..."
Given the practical reality of the way society funds scientists to do their work this is the silliest thing you've said yet.
PS.... But I would welcome your advocacy of increased climate science funding to improve the models.
You say:
"I would focus more on this upcoming winter to see if ice continues to rebuild. That would be good news to focus on, and it should be reported. However, I don't see that happening."
You should head up there. After Thanksgiving maybe.
As you say the story is there it just needs someone to report on it and, I'm thinking you're the man for the job.
Joe Q. Public
Oh pleaase, someone tell the guy who keeps saying we should read RC that this alone makes his input unreliable. Any website that supports, and is a part of, such statistical nonsense such as Mann hockey stick, or Steigs Antartic paper, has no credibility. Guys, RC is a joke website, too close to the whole theory to be objective. Reading RC and believing it is akin to giving Dracula the keys to the bloodbank. If you want to talk seriously about climate, don't quote RC.
The AGW theory claimed CO2 as the major driver of climate, with a direct link between increase in CO2 and increase in temperature (fraudulent Mann et al Hockey-Stick-Graph).
This theory has now been falsified. Despite a large increase in CO2 over the last 10yr global temperatures has not increased and SST have fallen. This demonstrates that CO2 cannot be the major driver, so the theory has been falsified.
The Artic is a relatively closed ocean and quite small compared to the rest of the water systems on the planet. It is also quite full of currently active under sea volcanos. Have any studies been done on the changes in water temperature under the ice due to this activity?
For anyone who believes that climate change isn't happening we have beach front property here in Alaska I bet you could by real cheap
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!