It shows the amount of ice present in the Arctic at it's minimum position (i.e. at the height of the Summer melt), which occurred more or less yesterday September 15th. The orange line shows the average position of the ice at exactly the same point between 1979 and 2000, clearly there is a lot less ice now than there was in the past, in fact you can see that the whole UK would fit comfortably into the gaps several times over.
I hope this won't all end in tears, but fear it will.
15 comments:
Think of the positive aspects - summer holidays in Greenland!
CB, should provide a nice relief from the trench foot we'll all have.. ;)
Not up here in the Cotswolds. It's you river dwellers who have to worry.
I know where to run when the water starts lapping at our doorstep then!
Fantastic marketing campaign for the Times atlas, I'm sure Rupert Murdoch will be very pleased with you for helping to stir some artificial controversy to help shift copies of his £150 book!
Standard practice for his companies, of course, and completely transparent. So I'm sorry, I've gotta call your alarmism on this naive.
Given you like to call people out on falsehoods would you care to make a retraction?
Here's a source
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-14969399
OP,
This is nothing to do with the Times atlas or Greenland? The data comes from the NSIDC which is a well respected research organisation funded mainly by NASA and the NSF in the USA and aligned to the university of Colorado. I suggest you follow the link and have a look at their WEB site, it's very informative.
So, I'm curious, which part would you like me to retract, or are you coming out as a climate change denier?
From the BBC source:
"A spokesperson for HarperCollins said its new map was based on information provided by the US National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC)."
Clearly there's a link, and you are clearly correct that providing a source reference does provide good information, even if it is misused, abused or completely overlooked.
So I'd like to ask, what inspired you to post this on the same day that HarperCollins issued the press release about its' new atlas in the first place? Which were you initially made aware of? Did you subsequently become aware of the other source as a result, or through completely independent means?
the second point is about statistical analysis. NSIDC only say the minimum extent is below average, so what evidence do you rely upon to reach a conclusion about this which they do not?
a related third point is about your reputation as a scientist and a defender of 'science'. Given you require that arguments should be backed by evidence, why do you make one apparently unsupported specific inference about climate change and a second about my opinion towards climate change? Is this not failing to meet your own standard?
a fourth point is elementary geography and the accuracy of your interpretation of your evidence. Where is Greenland? Is it not at the centre of the map you refer to? If your climatological statement that the NSIDC data has nothing to do with Greenland, what evidence can you provide that Greenland's location at the centre of the map you reference has no measurable effect on the ice sheet surrounding it and at least partially covering it?
OP,
If the average level of anything is a minimum then by definition the average level of it must have been greater in the past within the bounds of the data set – or maybe you could point out where my maths is wrong there?
As for your opinion on climate change, I have no idea, that’s why I asked you a straightforward question which you avoided answering BTW. The reason I think you might be is because plenty of times in the past you have defended religious positions here in the teeth of clear evidence, and now you are criticising me for not meeting a high standard of evidence, this strikes me as totally inconsistent and makes me question your motives.
Can I assume that you only require strong evidence for things you disagree with?
As for why I posted about this it’s because I saw this picture, nothing to do with the Times Atlas although I did read that story later, the key fact was the 15th of September which is when the minimum level of ice usually occurs. See here
As far as I am aware the error in the atlas was centred on Greenland, this post was nothing to do with that, thanks for pointing out to me where Greenland is though (rolls eyes) When I said “this” I meant “this post”, not global warming generally.
Oh and for the record I think Murdoch is odious and a climate change denier into the bargain; I am on record on this blog attacking Murdoch so it’s pure fantasy on your part to claim that I’m supporting him about something I didn’t even mention…
Anyway, how are you?
OP, One footnote on this, its probably worth pointing out that the data in the NSIDC analysis is actually disputed. Another research team based in Germany that has higher resolution equipment claims that the shrinkage is even greater, in fact they are claiming that the minimum extent of the ice is at an all time low, at least since 2003 which is when it could be reliably measured from satellite images.
Steve,
you've changed what you said so whether your sums add up or not they reach different answers.
If your understanding of a straightforward question is to make an explicit insinuation then I should ask when did you stop beating your wife?
Far be it from you answering my straightforward questions, you decided to divert attention onto a seperate subject which has been gone over repeatedly and at considerable length and on which you refuse to accept the value differences between validity, legitimacy, fact and truth in order to impute a judgement over an opinion which you wish me to hold for the sake of having someone to disagree with.
Whatever you've put 'on record' about Murdoch your actions say something completely different.
If you can't live up to your own standards then where's the punchline?
OP, So it turns out that the Times people used thickness data from the NSIDC to extrapolate extent without speaking with them directly, however as the director of that institute confirms thickness data is not a reliable indicator of extent, he also confirmed that the NSIDC made no such claims regarding Greenland to anyone (source: New Scientist). So, I have no reason to believe the NSIDC data I refer to is false nor therefore have I any reason to retract my statement that there is “clearly a lot less ice now than there has been in the past”, or in other words in the past the average Summer sea ice extent was a lot greater than it is now (Sep 15th), this is a simple statement of fact, any argument there may be is merely over minor details.
Since I didn’t refer to the Times Atlas in any way in my post (which hasn’t changed?), and this post is based on the other BBC article (link in previous comment) and since the data I commented on relates to something entirely different from the Times Atlas error namely sea ice and not the ice pack sitting on Greenland, then I think I’m left with the conclusion that you wanted to catch me out but unfortunately for you in your eagerness you didn’t check the link and assumed I was speaking about a different lump of ice.
If you don’t want to confirm or deny that you are a climate change denier then that’s fine by me and you can make spurious comparisons to loaded question fallacies all you like it doesn’t alter the fact that my question is not loaded and simply requires a yes, no or don’t know answer.
The answer to this question is central to your criticism of me, because by accusing me of having no evidence of a recent decline in sea ice in the Arctic when all I did was to replay the conclusion of the scientific consensus then you are clearly denying that consensus, if you do not deny this evidence then your comment is just trolling or trying to provoke an argument with me, which is fine as that’s kind of the point of this blog, but in that case I'd throw it back to you and say I think your accusation is unjustified.
No, I recommend you don't skim read as that way you'll be able to address the points made (rather than those you have preconditioned yourself to think were made), you'll be able to pick up on the hints within what was written, and you won't take things so personally.
It is clear to me that NSIDC did cooperate closely with HarperCollins (it wouldn't surprise me if they made a large donation) for mutual benefit. The TimesAtlas imprint claims to be the 'most authoratative' based upon it's use of credible data. Meanwhile NSIDC want to imply that ice is retreating in support of scientific theory but this is not fully supported by their data and it would be imprudent for them to do so themselves.
The way round this is to encourage the people who use their data for commercial purposes (rather than for academic policy purposes) to extrapolate. That way an atlas may remain relevant in the marketplace for longer. They then concoct coordinated publicity for their respective commercial and scientific campaigns to feed off each other and raise awareness of their respective issues and products through popular controversy.
This is something Murdoch has been doing in various ways since he introduced page 3 girls to get people talking.
Murdoch's pop culture genius was to tap into the underlying human psychology that it is rare for anybody to like being told they are wrong - those that do, such as himself, do so because they benefit in other ways.
The advanced technique is to invert the logic and use those that cannot be seen to be wrong to induce popular imagination.
And when the two combine together it produces spectacular results with amazing consistency.
It is a standard media management scheme - ideas and theories need to be marketed as much as products do, so it suits both sides interests to do a bit of quid pro quo.
And you've been half-suckered in - the other half is an unavoidable symptom of hyper-mediated society.
Frankly you're a bit childish for attacking me rather than seeing how you're being manipulated, and even if you think your heart is in the right place it suggests your head may not.
fwiw, my dad was a pioneering climatologist who was a not insignificant part of the teams who designed the first generations of weather satellite networks (he helped track the jetstream and helped discover the hole in the ozone layer among other things).
So stop using long words when you've had too much to drink to understand them any more. Perhaps then your sentences will then make more sense and you can avoid writing something as bitterly stupid as that last comment.
"are you coming out as a climate change denier?"
is not straightforward - it is heavily loaded, which is why i didnt answer it in a straightforward way, as was proved by your comparable refusal to answer the comparable 'when did you stop beating your wife?' question.
OP, now I'm just devastated, some knob on the internet called me a drunken idiot, how can I ever recover from that... (I hope I used the word KNOB correctly)
Honestly, is that all you've got? name calling and conspiracy theories, I bet this kind of thing still goes down great in the student union bar.
You can beat your shitty stick against your little straw Murdoch all you like, as for his pointless Atlas or his PR strategy you may well be right about that or you may well be completely barking mad and wear a tin foil hat, I really don't care, that's not the story I am telling and you won't admit it.
You know OP, I may be an idiot in your eyes but in life the simplest answer is more often than not the right one and I see nothing in what you say that changes my mind about what that is.
Anyway, it's not all bad!, I did have a good laugh about the "you're being manipulated" comment, very interesting, especially when companies like Exxon are investing billions in exploration of areas previously inaccessible due to, guess what, ICE!!! Whilst behind the scenes simultaneously funding climate change denial. Facts are facts whether you want to believe them or not.
Oh and my dad's bigger than your dad, so there!
that's almost hilarious, I called you a bit of a drunken child, not a drunken idiot - even after I asked you to get things right.
I'm sorry you think you've reached the peak of your potential, and that you have to take out your frustration in this medium by expressing your judgemental nature in this way.
I feel truly sad for you. Best of luck for the future.
Post a Comment