AGU 2007

OFf to AGU tomorrow morning. I’m doing two presentations – an oral presentation on hurricanes on Wednesday in a Spatial Statistics session (with Roger Pielke) and a poster on Friday on Almagre tree rings (with Pete Holzmann). See climateaudit.org/pdf/agu07.* for the two PPTs.

AGU tends to be exhausting. Plus I’ve got a reasonably full social calendar as well. Plus for the third year I’m taking my squash racquet – one of my friends for Toronto is working in Toronto, so maybe this year I’ll actually play. Usually I’m too tired at the end of each day.

The bristlecone program has cost about $4000; I haven’t done an exact accounting, but contributions in response to the announcement were about $3500-3700. My trip to AGU is going to cost about $2000 between plane fare, hotels, registration, presentation fees, etc.

I’ll try to write some daily reports. If I don’t, it’s because I’m having a good time.

Update: thanks to readers for their response to this. About 60 readers contributed $2700.

92 Comments

  1. Jimmy
    Posted Dec 9, 2007 at 11:28 PM | Permalink

    Good luck and have fun.

    …as this costs more than a grande cafe mocha (but only by a *little* given their mark-up), does this negate the Starbucks Hypothesis???

  2. IL
    Posted Dec 10, 2007 at 12:48 AM | Permalink

    Good luck, hope you enjoy it. What you are doing is important and you are really making a difference.

  3. TAC
    Posted Dec 10, 2007 at 7:01 AM | Permalink

    Note that when Steve writes

    My trip to AGU is going to cost about $2000

    he is referring to money out of his own pocket.

    If you want to help defray Steve’s expenses, the “Tip Jar” in the upper-left-hand corner of this page welcomes contributions.

  4. MrPete
    Posted Dec 10, 2007 at 8:19 AM | Permalink

    Wow, the hurricane talk looks quite interesting and a nice surprise!

  5. Posted Dec 10, 2007 at 8:29 AM | Permalink

    Pete,

    How did you find the presentations?

    Googling CA for climateaudit.org/pdf/agu07.* and variants thereof does not find them.

    Thanks,

    Mike

  6. Posted Dec 10, 2007 at 8:29 AM | Permalink

    Will there be any video of the presentations? Heck, I’d settle for some shot of the game of squash… if it happens!!! :-)

  7. Posted Dec 10, 2007 at 8:34 AM | Permalink

    PS. Have a great trip!

  8. PE Harvey
    Posted Dec 10, 2007 at 8:34 AM | Permalink

    5
    They are in the following list :

    http://climateaudit.org/pdf/

  9. ShauneS
    Posted Dec 10, 2007 at 8:49 AM | Permalink

    Clink to the tip jar!

    Have a good trip.

  10. Michael Babbitt
    Posted Dec 10, 2007 at 9:29 AM | Permalink

    Just a note: I just sent you a small donation. I appreciate your work; I don’t understand it all, but I appreciate it. I would encourage everyone else who does also give a little. Good, honest, rigorous climate data analysis seems hard to come by today, unfortunately. Thank you and have a safe and productive trip.

  11. Doug
    Posted Dec 10, 2007 at 9:34 AM | Permalink

    Money is in the tip jar, to be doubled if you win your squash match.

  12. Posted Dec 10, 2007 at 10:01 AM | Permalink

    I’m in.

    Cmon all you FoS’s! Pony up!

  13. Russ
    Posted Dec 10, 2007 at 10:34 AM | Permalink

    I am in! Have a great trip.

  14. vg
    Posted Dec 10, 2007 at 10:51 AM | Permalink

    maybe you wont be needing to go to these meetings anymore (reasonably soon) except for a russian problem

    http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/do_nmap.py?year_last=2007&month_last=11&sat=4&sst=1&type=anoms&mean_gen=11&year1=2007&year2=2007&base1=1951&base2=1980&radius=250&pol=reg

  15. Scott Lurndal
    Posted Dec 10, 2007 at 12:22 PM | Permalink

    re: 14

    The “russian problem” seems to extend into alaska. The magnitude of the anomoly in the northern climes would indicate a fruitful venue for further study; is it an artifact of urbanization, the current booms in mining and POL, C02, natural variation or a simple statistical anomoly?

  16. Anthony Watts
    Posted Dec 10, 2007 at 1:49 PM | Permalink

    Perhaps part of the reason behind the “Alaskan problem” can be seen here:

    http://ccc.atmos.colostate.edu/Alaskacoopsites.php

    The one at Cordova is particularly interesting, as is the one at English bay. Apparently they never heard of the 100 foot rule.

  17. Etienne
    Posted Dec 10, 2007 at 1:59 PM | Permalink

    RE.16 Anthony Watts

    these should give nice data ….

  18. SteveSadlov
    Posted Dec 10, 2007 at 2:02 PM | Permalink

    RE: #16 – imagine what the thermal gradients can be in such locations.

  19. Larry
    Posted Dec 10, 2007 at 2:04 PM | Permalink

    16, the one in Cordova is a winner. Let me guess: that building has the town’s diesel generators in it.

  20. Anthony Watts
    Posted Dec 10, 2007 at 3:31 PM | Permalink

    RE19, Larry, you are not far off. According to NCDC MMS it is the CORDOVA ELECTRIC CORP, INSIDE & 0.85 MI N OF PO AT CORDOVA, AK

    Here is a satellite view: http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&hl=en&geocode=&time=&date=&ttype=&q=60.55611+-145.753060&ie=UTF8&t=h&om=1&ll=60.555876,-145.753169&spn=0.004288,0.013154&z=17&iwloc=addr

  21. Anthony Watts
    Posted Dec 10, 2007 at 3:44 PM | Permalink

    RE19,20 Actually Larry, you are EXACTLY right…with a little more research, I found the details on that facility here:

    http://www.cordovaelectric.com/orca.htm

    It would seem a warmer than normal place, and of course a temperature sensor with that sort of proximity would be measuring waste heat from electric power generation in addition to normal climate fluctuations. I wonder if power demand in Cordova has gone up in the last 20 years? The Cordova Electric Company was formed in 1978 by a town vote.

  22. steve mosher
    Posted Dec 10, 2007 at 4:02 PM | Permalink

    RE 21. Alaska is teleconnected to antartica so problem solved.

  23. Posted Dec 10, 2007 at 4:04 PM | Permalink

    I would like to make a contribution but do not want to use paypal. Is there an address to which I can send a check? Thanks.

  24. Carrick
    Posted Dec 10, 2007 at 4:41 PM | Permalink

    The “russian problem” seems to extend into alaska. The magnitude of the anomoly in the northern climes would indicate a fruitful venue for further study; is it an artifact of urbanization, the current booms in mining and POL, C02, natural variation or a simple statistical anomoly?

    How about loss of ice sheets due to prior global warming following the end of the Little Ice Age? This would decrease the albedo in those regions and would increase regional temperature anomalies in the manner shown.

    Currently I don’t believe changes regional albedo is routinely factored into global climate models. Perhaps somebody in climate modeling could address that for us…

  25. Phil
    Posted Dec 10, 2007 at 6:43 PM | Permalink

    Sent you a contribution. I admire your work. Just heard on Fox news that Brazilian scientists say that the Artic has recoverd all but one percent of its ice–and winter is a week away. The Anartic has amassed 725,000 sq. mi. more ice. Poor Al.

  26. Andy
    Posted Dec 10, 2007 at 6:54 PM | Permalink

    Tip’s in the jar. Safe travels.

  27. Susann
    Posted Dec 10, 2007 at 6:55 PM | Permalink

    I don’t know if this will work but I found this graphic on the National Snow and Ice Data Centre website

  28. Susann
    Posted Dec 10, 2007 at 6:57 PM | Permalink

    Sorry.

  29. Susann
    Posted Dec 10, 2007 at 7:07 PM | Permalink

    I give up. Suffice it to say that according to SOCC, the multi-year ice has not recovered, although sea ice extent has. I’m not an expert, so I don’t know what this means completely, but I suspect it means that the older ice has melted and has not been replaced by new ice when the freeze occurred,. Obviously, each winter the temperature in the artic is low enough to cause ice to reform. The question, I suppose, is whether enough melts each summer to reduce the older ice acumulation — the kind of ice that only forms after multiple years of being in existence without melting. That graphic I tried to link shows that. Here is more from that site:

    In recent years, satellite data have indicated an even more dramatic reduction in regional ice cover. In September 2002, sea ice in the Arctic reached a record minimum (Serreze et al. 2003), 4 percent lower than any previous September since 1978, and 14 percent lower than the 1979-2000 mean. In the past, a low ice year would be followed by a rebound to near-normal conditions, but 2002 was followed by two more low-ice years, both of which almost matched the 2002 record. Taking these three years into account, the September ice extent trend for 1979-2004 declined by 7.7 percent per decade (Stroeve et al. 2005). The year 2005 set a new record, dropping the estimated decline in end-of-summer Arctic sea ice to approximately 8 percent per decade. Although sea ice did not set a new record low in 2006, it did fall below normal for the fifth consecutive year. In 2007, sea ice broke all prior satellite records, reaching a record low a month before the end of melt season. Through 2007, the September decline trend is now over 10 percent per decade.

  30. steve mosher
    Posted Dec 10, 2007 at 7:21 PM | Permalink

    “running for the ice”

    Ask around, somebody will explain the metaphor to you.

    credit moshpit of course.

  31. Steve W
    Posted Dec 10, 2007 at 7:33 PM | Permalink

    #25
    re: Brazilians. Can you post a link please?

    Here is good current arctic sea ice animation. This one will be fun to watch.

  32. Steve W
    Posted Dec 10, 2007 at 7:35 PM | Permalink

    2nd try to post sea ice animation link:

    http://www.socc.ca/seaice/seaice_current_e.cfm

  33. bender
    Posted Dec 10, 2007 at 7:50 PM | Permalink

    The GCMs did not correctly predict the warming of the Arctic Ocean. They did not predict the shift in the PDO or in the AO (or even in ENSO for that matter!). The surprising failure to predict AO shift is noted in a recent paper by Hansen, but is glossed over. Upshot: no wonder they are not correctly predicting Arctic sea ice change. They can’t predict any of the processes that sea ice is teleconnected to.

    I conjecture that there is something non-CO2 driven that is happening deep in the world’s oceans. Soemthing we don’t understand yet. Given the oceans’ huge lag times, I am not convinced yet that the effect is not lag effects of solar from the 1990s or earlier. Anyone with evidence to the contrary, step right up.

    But when discussing oceans, be careful to distinguish between sea surface temperatures and deep water. SSTs are not the issue I’m pointing to. (this means you, sod)

  34. VG
    Posted Dec 10, 2007 at 7:59 PM | Permalink

    re sea ice
    Wrote to NSIDC the following
    The data presented on your graph

    http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/s_plot.html (November anomaly = 0%)
    does not appear to correlate with the cryosphere data shown here

    + anomaly since (approx 1 million square km since sept 2007 to now).
    Maybe there is a good reason for this, but an explanation would be greatly appreciated (if you have the time)

    Reply:

    The 2 plots that you are referring to actually show different sea ice information.
    The plot that NSIDC produces is showing sea ice EXTENT anomalies, whereas the graph
    from the University of Illinois is showing sea ice AREA anolalies.
    The way in which the values are being provided is also different.

    NSIDC extent plot is calculating monthly means over the time series. The Illinois plot
    is calculating daily averages of the time series.

    I hope this answers your question. Let me know if you need further assistance.

    Best regards,
    NSIDC User Services

    What do you think?

  35. Steve Beery
    Posted Dec 10, 2007 at 8:11 PM | Permalink

    Have fun. The money is in the tip jar.

  36. Bernie
    Posted Dec 10, 2007 at 8:24 PM | Permalink

    Tips in the jar. Say hi to the guys from RC.

  37. An Inquirer
    Posted Dec 10, 2007 at 8:35 PM | Permalink

    Susann,
    You are right — and a warning. The Artic ice will not have the thickness that it has had in the past, and even though the extent may recover, we can expect the ice to melt next summer to levels far beyond what we saw a couple of decades. Warning #1: NASA says that the Artic ice melt is due to forces other than CO2 accumulation. This is confirmed by the Artic Ice melt that started back in the 50s when temperatures were cooling. Warning #2: SOCC is far from neutral in its approach to global warming. Many observers are upset on the polticial natgure of their activities. They decided years ago that the AGW theory was proven and according to the Auditor General spent $6.5 billion between 1998 and 2005 on climate change. In that time they closed weather stations so we have fewer now than in 1960 and replaced others with controversial — some say “essentially useless” Automatic Weather Observing Stations (AWOS). When NavCanada was set up to run airports, they refused to accept the AWOS stations. This led to an inquiry by Senator Pat Carney, which is in the record. They also diverted money form other places such that they didn’t even achieve their own targets on pollution cleanup. (As you can see, they have a credibility problems in certain corners.) SOCC was producing a decent graphic on Arctic ice area, but for some reason they stopped it when the recovery went past 2006 levels. http://www.socc.ca/images/seaice/current_cycle.jpg
    Now the best pictures and graphs at this site — for both Antarctica and the Artic — http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/

  38. Tim R
    Posted Dec 10, 2007 at 9:00 PM | Permalink

    #21 Anthony,

    and 16, 20, 22…

    Those posts remind me that since I travel throughout AK, I can also assist in getting some pictures if interested.

    For reference, please refer to http://climate.gi.alaska.edu/Climate/Location/TimeSeries/index.html

    The link provides historical climate data for several cities. Clicking on a city brings up a summary that also provides a link to actual monthly measurements (ie, “temperature”) that is up to date vs the summary graphs. One thing I’ve briefly noticed (an “eyeball view”, not any way near the statistical professionalism present here) is that the temps have not changed much throughout the years – except during the oil line construction years. I hear claims of such significant warming in the Artic, but do not readily see that in the data provided in the above link.

  39. conard
    Posted Dec 10, 2007 at 10:12 PM | Permalink

    Anthony,

    Do you need anything from Barrow, AK. My brother is coming home for the holidays and if I ping him early enough he may find some time.

  40. MarkR
    Posted Dec 10, 2007 at 10:38 PM | Permalink

    Just added my contribution to your expedition costs into the Tip Jar. Have a good one.

  41. kim
    Posted Dec 10, 2007 at 10:50 PM | Permalink

    I think it’s pretty cool to realize that the Northwest Passage that Hudson and so many others fruitlessly and dangerously hunted for, probably existed only a short time before they went looking.
    ============================================

  42. VG
    Posted Dec 11, 2007 at 12:08 AM | Permalink

    Global warming caused by humans has apparently been cancelled today…. So we will definitely have to call it climate change from now on.

    Climate warming is naturally caused and shows no human influence: Carbon dioxide (CO2) is not a pollutant.International Journal of Climatology,Royal Meteorological Society [DOI: 10.1002/joc.1651]. The authors are Prof. David H. Douglass (Univ. of Rochester), Prof. John R. Christy (Univ. of Alabama), Benjamin D. Pearson (graduate student), and Prof. S. Fred Singer (Univ. of Virginia).

    link http://science-sepp.blogspot.com/2007/12/press-release-dec-10-2007.html

  43. Posted Dec 11, 2007 at 12:29 AM | Permalink

    RE; Russian Anomaly

    Russian cities are well-known for their district heating systems. Steam is distributed through leaky, poorly insulated, above ground pipes (see photo fofth from top on left http://www.leuku.fi/index.php?kansiohaku=1&lang=english&mode=folder&ko=1&kid=29&rid=193&ro=1). The systems are so dilapidated and leaky that very little steam reaches radiators in homes http://www.russiaprofile.org/page.php?pageid=CDI+Russia+Profile+List&articleid=a1195229724
    Outdoor central heating :-) The polar bears must be most appreciative.

    The housing was so poorly constructed and ill-insulated that it leaks heat like a sieve. See http://www.ebrd.com/new/stories/2007/070329.htm. All that is about to be fixed (with new housing). Is Siberia about to enter a sudden cooling?

  44. fFreddy
    Posted Dec 11, 2007 at 2:55 AM | Permalink

    Re #43, Mike Hollinshead
    Also, I found that the radiators inside the buildings were far too hot, and had no thermostats on them. So the only way to avoid boiling in the middle of a Moscow winter was to leave the windows open.

  45. EW
    Posted Dec 11, 2007 at 3:20 AM | Permalink

    Climate warming is naturally caused and shows no human influence:
    International Journal of Climatology,Royal Meteorological Society [DOI: 10.1002/joc.1651]. The authors are Prof. David H. Douglass (Univ. of Rochester), Prof. John R. Christy (Univ. of Alabama), Benjamin D. Pearson (graduate student), and Prof. S. Fred Singer (Univ. of Virginia).

    Interested readers: write for a pdf of this article to ewcz@seznam.cz

  46. John A
    Posted Dec 11, 2007 at 4:07 AM | Permalink

    Why should I pay Steve to have a good time? I only contribute when Steve is pinned down by existential angst and academic loathing.

  47. Tom_NO
    Posted Dec 11, 2007 at 5:32 AM | Permalink

    Something interesting from the BBC today:

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7132220.stm

    It will be presented at the AGU meeting.

  48. MarkW
    Posted Dec 11, 2007 at 6:07 AM | Permalink

    Anthony,

    The Cordova sensor is also sitting right next to a big power transformer. See those fins on the transformer? Those are heat radiators. That transformer is going to put out a lot of heat.

  49. Bernie
    Posted Dec 11, 2007 at 6:44 AM | Permalink

    Please, ArCtic – not Artic. This is a common spelling error but should not be appearing here.

  50. Susann
    Posted Dec 11, 2007 at 7:35 AM | Permalink

    ARC-TIC!

    I knew that. :)

  51. Susann
    Posted Dec 11, 2007 at 7:40 AM | Permalink

    They decided years ago that the AGW theory was proven and according to the Auditor General spent $6.5 billion between 1998 and 2005 on climate change. In that time they closed weather stations so we have fewer now than in 1960 and replaced others with controversial — some say “essentially useless” Automatic Weather Observing Stations (AWOS). When NavCanada was set up to run airports, they refused to accept the AWOS stations. This led to an inquiry by Senator Pat Carney, which is in the record

    Oh, thanks for this! I’ll add it to my “must research” file. “GOLD, Jerry!”

  52. Lennart
    Posted Dec 11, 2007 at 8:29 AM | Permalink

    The Douglass paper can be downloaded at http://icecap.us/images/uploads/DOUGLASPAPER.pdf
    Lennart

  53. bender
    Posted Dec 11, 2007 at 9:04 AM | Permalink

    #51
    What’s wrong with pointing out the irony that climate science was being marginalized at the same time that climate change policy was thriving? It’s OT, but it’s not uninteresting or irrelevant. As for GOLD, perhaps your expectations are a little high?

  54. bender
    Posted Dec 11, 2007 at 9:12 AM | Permalink

    The density of weather stations is a critical factor in measuring climatic trends with precision (fractions of a degree), especially when you think about all the biases that need to be corrected for, such as the land UHI effect. How are you going to calibrate UHI without station pairs (minumum!) inside and outside the urban dome? Degrading the station network impedes your ability to estimate these effects with precision, increases the likelihood that your precautionary principle will lead to opportunity costs being incurred unnecessarily.

    To tie it back to the opening post, the importance of spatial sampling biases is the topic of Steve’s poster (Almagre pines) and talk (hurricane detection) at AGU.

    Gold?

  55. steve mosher
    Posted Dec 11, 2007 at 10:43 AM | Permalink

    RE 54.. Bender… see also the comment on RC about Greenland temps in the MWP. Warmer than
    today….. but it’s regional and not global.. Teleconnection switch = off.

    Cool in MWP: teleconection = TRUE. we found the sweet spot.
    Warm in MWP: teleconnection = FALSE. all warm regions are disteleconected.

  56. bender
    Posted Dec 11, 2007 at 10:47 AM | Permalink

    #55 Another one for the alarmist double-standards database. That’s three in one week. We’re up to 22 now.

  57. SteveSadlov
    Posted Dec 11, 2007 at 11:01 AM | Permalink

    RE: #33 – my vote regarding that “something” would be biological systems behavior. I think there is “something” between green plants and lower level plants such fungi and bacteria. Of course on land but significantly, in the seas. There is a pendulum swing between the two over vast time scales. Interestingly, fungi supply aerosols. And interestingly, the life assemblage in the abyss and at the mid oceanic ridges is utterly non photic. Hmmm…..

  58. SteveSadlov
    Posted Dec 11, 2007 at 11:04 AM | Permalink

    RE: #37 – you are correct, area is not volume. And on that score, I would point out that the extremely compressive stress regime in the lower longitudes of the Arctic over the past few years has certainly impacted thickness – thickness in that area has increased, as multiyear ice has been massively piled up there.

  59. SteveSadlov
    Posted Dec 11, 2007 at 11:06 AM | Permalink

    RE: #39 – A few hundred barrels of crude would be a nice present! LOL …

  60. SteveSadlov
    Posted Dec 11, 2007 at 11:09 AM | Permalink

    RE: #44 – Furthermore, and I hereby reveal my own out West American bias, it seems that in much of Europe and Asia, they just love to crank the heat during the cold season. Way above the 68F recommended here in the US for energy savings. Feels like about 80F! :lol:

  61. SteveSadlov
    Posted Dec 11, 2007 at 11:11 AM | Permalink

    RE: #49 – never ascribe to intellectual sloth that which can be attributed to lack of caffein and overly fat fingers (I resemble that remark, nyuk, nyuk, nyuk …).

  62. Kenneth Fritsch
    Posted Dec 11, 2007 at 1:39 PM | Permalink

    I have decided that my trip tip will be in the form of a self-accessed fine for some recent OT posting – but do not get any ideas.

    I always enjoy the combined technical and human interest side of Steve M’s trip reports – a mix that probably derives from his being a puzzle solver and a retired guy without feeling he has to prove anything about himself.

  63. steve mosher
    Posted Dec 11, 2007 at 1:50 PM | Permalink

    Black ops question:

    If you controlled climate observations from China or Russia what would you do?

    Think.

  64. Earle Williams
    Posted Dec 11, 2007 at 1:54 PM | Permalink

    Sea ice extent vs area:

    There was a time when you could pull the daily data directly from UIUC for both extent and area. I can’t find that directory anymore through the Cryosphere web pages. Anyhoo….

    Extent is the total area of where observed satellite readings indicate a concentration of ice greater than a specific threshold, which if I remember correctly is 10%.

    Area is the sum of each partial area as calulated above times the ice concentration within that area.

    My take on this is that area is more indicative of ice-forming conditions, ie. lower SST and air temperatures, whereas extent also reflects ice-dispersing conditions such as currents and winds.

  65. SteveSadlov
    Posted Dec 11, 2007 at 2:28 PM | Permalink

    RE: #63 – Russia – prior to “Perestroika” I would claim colder “official records” than actuals, in order to get more dinero sent out my way. Especially if I were way to the East. After “Perestroika” I would do the opposite, in order to maximally attract Western investment / management expats (“see, it’s not really all that cold here!”).

    China – Prior to 1921 I would not care. 1921 – 1949 I would strive to be as “scientific” as possible, in order to convey the illusion of sophistication. 1949 – 1978 I would essentially mimic the Soviet approach (see pre Perestroika above). Post 1978, in order to prove that “to be rich is glorious” I would want to maximize my capture of UHI, since I would know that savvy Western investors and growth obsessed provincial government people were using it as a proxy for rapid economic growth.

  66. gdn
    Posted Dec 11, 2007 at 2:54 PM | Permalink

    Please, ArCtic – not Artic.

    How anti-climatic!

  67. Posted Dec 11, 2007 at 3:07 PM | Permalink

    http://www-nsidc.colorado.edu/sotc/sea_ice.html

    i have some problems, fitting a trend line. could one of guys help me out?

    isn t there a clear upward trend since this summer?

  68. MarkW
    Posted Dec 11, 2007 at 3:43 PM | Permalink

    What trend line, the positive PDO or the negative PDO trend line.

  69. SteveSadlov
    Posted Dec 11, 2007 at 3:45 PM | Permalink

    RE: #67 – Key word there is “adjusted.” Furthermore, anything prior to about 1976 is essentially a guess, since there is not good satellite data* prior to that. All we know is, during a time dominated by positive PDO, NH sea ice extent went down. Interesting.

    * Even satellite data yield only an estimate. The process is, at the 50K foot level: incident passive microwave spectra are collected using detector arrays. Microwave spectra indirectly indicate surface characteristics. While it is possible to somewhat discern the difference between sea ice and open sea, and sea ice and land, using this method, it does have issues. For example, the sea ice land boundary is difficult to discern, especially if there is snow cover on land. There are often conservative “adjustments” applied to such cases, which insert artificial “gaps” between the ice edge and land. Also, things on the surface of the sea ice, such as snow, slush or melt ponds (shallow puddles atop the ice) can be misinterpreted as open water. Even certain types of wind formed / scoured ice surfaces can lead to false “open water” readings. Finally, raw data sets are subjected to conversion algorithms which then attempt to spatially represent ice area. Within them, “adjustements” are typically applied. Additional “adjustments” to the final spatial data may also be made.

  70. Phil.
    Posted Dec 11, 2007 at 4:51 PM | Permalink

    “i have some problems, fitting a trend line. could one of guys help me out?

    isn t there a clear upward trend since this summer?”

    Here’s the missing caption:
    “Mean sea ice anomalies, 1953-2007: Passive microwave-derived (SMMR / SSM/I) sea ice extent departures from monthly means for the Northern Hemisphere, January 1953 to September 2007. Image courtesy of Walt Meier and Julienne Stroeve, National Snow and Ice Data Center, University of Colorado, Boulder.”

  71. Bob Tisdale
    Posted Dec 11, 2007 at 6:33 PM | Permalink

    Link to Nasa webpage with title “NASA Sees Arctic Ocean Circulation Do an About-Face”.

    “Our study confirms many changes seen in upper Arctic Ocean circulation in the 1990s were mostly decadal in nature, rather than trends caused by global warming,” said Morison.

    http://www.nasa.gov/vision/earth/lookingatearth/ipy-20071113.html

  72. Bob Tisdale
    Posted Dec 11, 2007 at 6:45 PM | Permalink

    Link to NASA webpage “NASA Sees Arctic Ocean Circulation Do an About-Face”, with the following quote:

    “Our study confirms many changes seen in upper Arctic Ocean circulation in the 1990s were mostly decadal in nature, rather than trends caused by global warming,” said Morison.

    http://www.nasa.gov/vision/earth/lookingatearth/ipy-20071113.html Sees Arctic Ocean Circulation Do an About-Face

    Regards

  73. jcspe
    Posted Dec 11, 2007 at 6:54 PM | Permalink

    63 steve mosher says:

    December 11th, 2007 at 1:50 pm
    Black ops question:

    If you controlled climate observations from China or Russia what would you do?

    Think.

    That would depend if whether or not I believed the western world would screw themselves economically or politically based upon my answer. It could be a really inexpensive way to win the new “cold war.” (yuck yuck, cheap pun for Mosher’s benefit) If I thought I could depend on idiots in WashDC to bring the U.S. economy down because of the way I fudged the data I would strongly consider whether temperature data were scientific-, political-, diplomatic-, or espionage-related information. Depending on my assessment of my own national interests I would act accordingly.

  74. Susann
    Posted Dec 11, 2007 at 7:05 PM | Permalink

    What’s wrong with pointing out the irony that climate science was being marginalized at the same time that climate change policy was thriving? It’s OT, but it’s not uninteresting or irrelevant. As for GOLD, perhaps your expectations are a little high?

    Bender, I was being serious! I had no idea that the SOCC had been viewed as being politicized so it’s important for me to know that. I will put it in my file and read it and related documents when I have time so I can judge myself. Currently, I’m focusing on sea level rise, so at some point, I have to address ice extent.

  75. Sam Urbinto
    Posted Dec 11, 2007 at 7:10 PM | Permalink

    Ah, sod. Derived calculated sat sampling shows a loss of 4 inches since ’53, most of it after the sat sampling got more accurate.

    As Sadlov said, how interesting.

  76. bender
    Posted Dec 11, 2007 at 7:18 PM | Permalink

    #73 Apologies Susann. So much sarcasm, so much cynicism nowadays – it’s sometimes hard to tell. You caught that NASA report on the AO reversal?

  77. bender
    Posted Dec 11, 2007 at 7:28 PM | Permalink

    sod #67, what do you make of the report cited in #72?
    (mosh, where’s that crickets sound bite?)

  78. Pat Keating
    Posted Dec 11, 2007 at 8:02 PM | Permalink

    74 Susann

    Currently, I’m focusing on sea level rise

    Watch out for the ‘adjustment’ that was made in which they used a spot in Hong Kong known to be sinking as baseline. BTW, parts of Dorchester County, Maryland (on the Chesapeake) are said to be sinking at 6″ per century.

  79. Susann
    Posted Dec 11, 2007 at 8:09 PM | Permalink

    Bender, no problem, when I wrote “GOLD!” I meant it. I haven’t read the NASA report yet, but it’s in that “must read” file along with about a dozen or more other sea ice /glacier / ice cap papers. I need a clone to do all the reading I have on my desk at home. :)

  80. Susann
    Posted Dec 11, 2007 at 8:16 PM | Permalink

    Bender, I just read the NASA press release. What is your take on it? What kind of data on the NAO is there for earlier in the century? How often does this kind of shift in circulation happen?

  81. Susann
    Posted Dec 11, 2007 at 8:18 PM | Permalink

    Damn. Arctic Ocean circulation, not NAO.

  82. Posted Dec 12, 2007 at 7:23 AM | Permalink

    sod #67, what do you make of the report cited in #72?

    circulation changes, that we don t understand? not much comfort, isn t it?

    the downward trend is older than a decade. the problem is not with extreme events like 2007. the constant trend is the problem.

  83. Michael Jankowski
    Posted Dec 12, 2007 at 7:34 AM | Permalink

    the downward trend is older than a decade

    You’re right. It’s about 21,000 yrs old.

  84. Steve McIntyre
    Posted Dec 12, 2007 at 8:17 AM | Permalink

    Thanks to readers for their response to this post. About 60 readers contributed $2700. Aside from welcoming the contributions, I appreciate the fact that individuals appreciate the site enough to support it.

  85. steven mosher
    Posted Dec 12, 2007 at 8:38 AM | Permalink

    bender:

    [audio src="http://www.naturesongs.com/cricket1.wav" /]

  86. steven mosher
    Posted Dec 12, 2007 at 8:43 AM | Permalink

    Susann.. on sea level hit the epa studies on the costs to adapt to a 1 meter sea rise.
    for the US something on the order of 250B to 400B.. over 100 years.

    which will cost more adaptation or mitigation? a blend of both.

    who should pay for people who continue to build and develop in areas of high risk.
    put the cost on the risk. works wonders.

  87. Tom Vonk
    Posted Dec 12, 2007 at 9:07 AM | Permalink

    #84

    About 60 readers contributed $2700. Aside from welcoming the contributions, I appreciate the fact that individuals appreciate the site enough to support it.

    We would surely have preferred that there be a zero more .
    Unfortunately we can’t tap the infinite well of potential like the IPCC does :)

  88. Carrick
    Posted Dec 12, 2007 at 10:40 AM | Permalink

    Stephen Mosher:

    Susann.. on sea level hit the epa studies on the costs to adapt to a 1 meter sea rise.
    for the US something on the order of 250B to 400B.. over 100 years.

    And you believe that?

    Seems there’s two problems to me. One is exaggeration of the economic impact by advocates. The second is that we don’t have a firm cause-and-effect relationship between human activity and sea level rise. After all the sea level has been rising for most of the last 10,000 years or so. There is nothing to say that anything humans do, short of causing another ice age, is going to radically alter the natural course of seal level changes.

    There are economic costs associated to adapting to any climate change. So what? Climate changes naturally over time. We’ve seen radical changes over the last two thousand years. Even without human intervention, change will occur and there will be costs associated with adapting to it. That’s just a fact of life.

  89. Sam Urbinto
    Posted Dec 12, 2007 at 1:21 PM | Permalink

    Let’s say it’s $1 over 1000 years. Why spend it if it won’t or can’t make a difference worth at least .1 cent a year? On the other hand, if 50 million in 10 years can show a savings of at least 5 million a year, why not do it? Why focus on the climate aspects of it at all?

    “Hey, if we do X we’ll save double what we spend, so let’s save money!”

  90. steven mosher
    Posted Dec 12, 2007 at 1:53 PM | Permalink

    RE 88. Do I believe 250B? for the US.. ya.

    The IPCC estimate 500B for the whole world. That is an approach of retreat ( dont build
    by the coast and retreat over time ) would cost accoring to the IPCC 500B worldwide.
    for the US they estimate the cost of retreat at 100B. So I belive that for 250B we could
    retreat from areas likely to be flooded or do the dutch thing.

    So, rather than mitigate emissions ( tax carbon) plan for adaptation. retreat from the coast.
    or apply a hedonistic tax on beach front owners as some communities have.

  91. M. Jeff
    Posted Dec 12, 2007 at 2:34 PM | Permalink

    re: #90, steven mosher, December 12th, 2007 at 1:53 pm:

    … or apply a hedonistic tax on beach front owners as some communities have.

    Don’t tax hedonism, just impose a thoroughfare tax.

    Texas’ mandate to allow extensive public access to its shores has its roots in the state’s days as a Spanish colony when wagons and horsemen used the beach as a thoroughfare.

    The Texas beach information is from the WSJ, “Whose Beach Is This Anyway? As Shorelines Shift, Owners Of Waterfront Homes Fight States Over Property Lines”

    http://online.wsj.com/public/article/SB119741959764822149.html

    The WSJ story was unusual in that it does not blame climate change or warming for the erosion of the beaches.

  92. Posted Dec 13, 2007 at 11:34 PM | Permalink

    SOCC disclaimer:

    Environment Canada does not warrant the quality, accuracy, or completeness of any information, data or product available from CCIN. It is provided “AS IS” without warranty or condition of any nature. Environment Canada disclaims all other warranties, either expressed or implied, including but not limited to implied warranties of merchantability and fitness for a particular purpose, with respect to the information, data, product or accompanying materials retrieved from this web site.

    So I’d say anything you see there Susan is definitive.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 3,420 other followers

%d bloggers like this: