Green Myth-Busting: Greenland was Once Green : jeffmcintirestrasburg

Green Myth-Busting: Greenland was Once Green

By Jeff McIntire-Strasburg • April 26, 2007

Greenland MYTH: When Eric the Red and his Viking buddies settled Greenland, it was a lush pastoral paradise fit for farming and raising animals.

Facts: As climate change skepticism has developed into a full-blown industry, a number of myths have filtered out about historical patterns of warming and cooling: just mention the “Little Ice Age” or the “Medieval Warm Period” to your favorite skeptic, and let ‘em go…

As a history buff, I always found today’s myth fascinating. As Coby Beck at Grist notes, Viking leader Eric the Red gave Greenland its name not because it was lush and green, but because he wanted folks back home to think it was:

Greenland was called Greenland by Erik the Red (was he red?), who was in exile and wanted to attract people to a new colony. He thought you should give a land a good name so people would want to go there! It likely was a bit warmer when he landed for the first time than it was when the last settlers starved due to a number of factors — climate change, or at least some bad weather, a major one.

But it was never lush, and their existence was always harsh and meager, especially due to the Viking’s disdain for other peoples and ways of living. They attempted to live a European lifestyle in an arctic climate, side by side with Inuit who easily outlasted them. They starved surrounded by oceans and yet never ate fish! (Note: this was not a typical European behavior, and is a bit of a mystery to this day.)

The issue here, of course, really isn’t Greenland’s name; it’s the idea of a Medieval Warm Period that skeptics claim was comparable to the present day in terms of the average temperature (or even warmer!). By extension, ice melts on Greenland aren’t that big a deal: it’s happened before.

Coby has thoughts on the Medieval Warm Period, and points to information from NOAA. RealClimate, the blog for anyone interested in hardcore climate science, also presents a number of reasons why the perception skeptics have about the Medieval Warm Period are likely incorrect.

Greenland wasn’t green in the tenth century… and we don’t want it to become green this century…

Recommend this post (5)

Posted in:

515 Responses to “Green Myth-Busting: Greenland was Once Green”

Black Wallaby Says:
December 12th, 2007 at 9:39 am

Hi Reasic,

Please be sensible and raise an “editorially-visitor exposed” Journal something like:

Green Myth Busting; Antarctica Ice-Sheet Is Growing!

I [Reasic]received an interesting summary of ideas from Max, which is typical of the skeptic feeding of the fallacy that Antarctica ice is NOT receding.

Then quote Max’s summary!

Go-on Reasic, don’t be scared, just do it!!!!!!

Regards, Black Wallaby

Jason Leggett Says:
December 12th, 2007 at 2:53 pm

Max,

Rather than addressing the issue of whether or not IPCC accepted or ignored the Johannessen/Zwally studies (the whole point of our debate), Jason makes other claims about errors by Zwally…

Your irrational and inconsistent arguments are becoming increasingly frustrating. I am not choosing to address issues with the Zwally study INSTEAD of addressing whether the IPCC ignored research. Let me provide you with a previous argument you made:

To “not accept” a report, one either has to (a) be unaware of its existence, (b) find obvious errors in the methods used in the report which render its conclusions meaningless, (c) come up with a more convincing or more comprehensive later report that covers the same period and scope which clearly demonstrates to the author of the first report that the conclusion reached in his report was in error, so that he sees his error and retracts this conclusion, which is then superceded by a new conclusion, thereby removing his previously reported conclusion from the record or (d) one has to ignore or reject it (whether this is “willfully”, through inadvertent action, inability to grasp or recognize its significance, negligence or for whatever reason, is not germane to our discussion, and I really do not want to go there).

You showed me: (a) that IPCC was indeed aware of the report but you were not able to show me that (b) there were obvious errors in the methods used in the report which render its conclusions meaningless or that (c) there was a “more convincing or more comprehensive later report covering the same time period and scope, which clearly demonstrates to the author of the first report that the conclusion reached in his report was in error, so that he sees his error and retracts this conclusion, which is then superceded by a new conclusion, thereby removing his previously reported conclusion from the record”. So we are left with (d).

Now, first of all, I’ve tried to explain that your approach here is all wrong, so we need more options than you’ve provided. Rather than being limited to pointing out “obvious errors” in a study, thereby “rendering its conclusions meaningless”, we should be able to understand that one can examine the methods and findings of various studies and simply take notice of potential reasons for any discrepancies in an effort to find the correct value for mass balance of the GIS. This does not necessarily have to render anything “meaningless”, as ALL methods and analyses have disadvantages.

Second, and the main point I wanted to make, is that pointing out issues with the Zwally study is not a distraction from determining whether the IPCC ignored research. It is all part of that process. You provided three options besides ignoring a study, including finding “errors” with a study. Now, you’re saying that I’d rather point out issues with the Zwally study INSTEAD of address whether the IPCC ignored research. This is a very frustrating reversal of your own argument. Rather than trying to confuse and obfuscate, maybe you could actually address my points? And I mean actually address them, rather than dismissing or trivilizing them.

ATM 1993/94 and 1998/99 plus ICESat starting 2004, spot studies covering a few months with relatively few data points compared to ERS (some thousands rather than tens of millions), showing very little increase in the “vast interior regions above 1500 meters” (one-fifth of the Johannessen study) and a resulting net overall loss in GIS mass over these spot periods.

Yes, I realize that there are disadvantages to the Thomas study, but there are disadvantages to EVERY study, and you have yet to adequately address the problems I’ve brought to your attention with the Zwally study.

errors by Zwally in converting from volume loss/increase to mass loss/increase, although Zwally explains in detail how he corrects for firn density and how “near-surface melting and subsequent refreezing in the firn lowers the surface by changing firn to higher density ice, which in turn affects the rate of subsequent densification”. Zwally then goes on to show how not making this correction would give an erroneous indication of mass loss, i.e. “without adjustment for dC/dt, this surface lowering might be incorrectly interpreted as a mass loss”. Although I pointed this all out to Jason earlier, he was apparently unable to grasp it and came back with his claim that Zwally made errors in converting from volume to mass.

Okay, about density, you’ve apparently completely missed my argument, which explained the difference between a correction for firn densification and the value used for the density of new material added in higher elevations:

The Zwally paper does include a correction for surface sinking caused by accelerated snow densification in a warmer climate. This is reasonable and makes the mass balance more positive (ie growing rather than shrinking); we also apply this corection. Zwally also assumes density of all added thickness (all at higher elevations) is that of solid ice. In fact the high elevation thickening is caused by increasing snowfall, and density should be smaller, so Zwally estimate makes mass growth too big. [email from Dr. Thomas]

As I stated before, this first of all proves your statement that Thomas did not apply this correction to be wrong. Also, this demonstrates that there is a difference between elevation adjustment for firn densification and the density used for the new material added in the higher elevations. Yes, both Thomas and Zwally applied corrections for firn densification, but Zwally used the density of ice for the increases in the higher elevations, while Thomas used a conservative 600 kg/m^3.

Next, you joked about my argument regarding the coverage of the Zwally study:

His last gasp was to come up with “well, Zwally really only covered 95%”, but this point is really too ludicrous to even dig further into.

Your casual dismissal, claiming this crucial point is “ludicrous”, without any proof or supporting evidence for your claim is completely inappropriate. You have continually responded in this fashion to my points, and yet you have the tenacity to claim that you have won the “debate”. How about supplying some numbers in the margins, and maybe an estimate of how much losses might have occurred in 5% of the GIS in the marginal areas? I’d be glad to do the math for you if you like.

Now, as to my other points that you have not yet addressed:

1. The Zwally study extended ERS data into the marginal areas, where Johannessen considered it to be unreliable, to cover an additional 10% or so of the GIS.

2. The Zwally study only worked with ATM data from 1993 to 1999, which means it is missing a full four years of data. This is crucial because not only is the missing data in the marginal areas where the most pronounced ablation has occurred, but it is also in the latter portion of the time period, where ablation increased.

You have argued that ERS data is better than the sparse ATM data, and I agree with that for the flat areas in higher elevations, but (1) Zwally used ERS data in some of these areas (beyond where Johannessen felt they were reliable), and (2) this does not negate the fact that where ATM data was used in the Zwally study, there is no data past 1999.

Please adequately address my arguments, rather than trivializing them and criticizing me for trying to prove exactly what you said I should prove in order to address your argument.

Jason Leggett Says:
December 12th, 2007 at 7:50 pm

Max,

Rather than addressing the issue of whether or not IPCC accepted or ignored the Johannessen/Zwally studies (the whole point of our debate), Jason makes other claims about errors by Zwally…

To “not accept” a report, one either has to (a) be unaware of its existence, (b) find obvious errors in the methods used in the report which render its conclusions meaningless, (c) come up with a more convincing or more comprehensive later report that covers the same period and scope which clearly demonstrates to the author of the first report that the conclusion reached in his report was in error, so that he sees his error and retracts this conclusion, which is then superceded by a new conclusion, thereby removing his previously reported conclusion from the record or (d) one has to ignore or reject it (whether this is “willfully”, through inadvertent action, inability to grasp or recognize its significance, negligence or for whatever reason, is not germane to our discussion, and I really do not want to go there).

You showed me: (a) that IPCC was indeed aware of the report but you were not able to show me that (b) there were obvious errors in the methods used in the report which render its conclusions meaningless or that (c) there was a “more convincing or more comprehensive later report covering the same time period and scope, which clearly demonstrates to the author of the first report that the conclusion reached in his report was in error, so that he sees his error and retracts this conclusion, which is then superceded by a new conclusion, thereby removing his previously reported conclusion from the record”. So we are left with (d).

ATM 1993/94 and 1998/99 plus ICESat starting 2004, spot studies covering a few months with relatively few data points compared to ERS (some thousands rather than tens of millions), showing very little increase in the “vast interior regions above 1500 meters” (one-fifth of the Johannessen study) and a resulting net overall loss in GIS mass over these spot periods.

errors by Zwally in converting from volume loss/increase to mass loss/increase, although Zwally explains in detail how he corrects for firn density and how “near-surface melting and subsequent refreezing in the firn lowers the surface by changing firn to higher density ice, which in turn affects the rate of subsequent densification”. Zwally then goes on to show how not making this correction would give an erroneous indication of mass loss, i.e. “without adjustment for dC/dt, this surface lowering might be incorrectly interpreted as a mass loss”. Although I pointed this all out to Jason earlier, he was apparently unable to grasp it and came back with his claim that Zwally made errors in converting from volume to mass.

The Zwally paper does include a correction for surface sinking caused by accelerated snow densification in a warmer climate. This is reasonable and makes the mass balance more positive (ie growing rather than shrinking); we also apply this corection. Zwally also assumes density of all added thickness (all at higher elevations) is that of solid ice. In fact the high elevation thickening is caused by increasing snowfall, and density should be smaller, so Zwally estimate makes mass growth too big. [email from Dr. Thomas]

Next, you joked about my argument regarding the coverage of the Zwally study:

His last gasp was to come up with “well, Zwally really only covered 95%”, but this point is really too ludicrous to even dig further into.

Now, as to my other points that you have not yet addressed:

1. The Zwally study extended ERS data into the marginal areas, where Johannessen considered it to be unreliable, to cover an additional 10% or so of the GIS.

2. The Zwally study only worked with ATM data from 1993 to 1999, which means it is missing a full four years of data. This is crucial because not only is the missing data in the marginal areas where the most pronounced ablation has occurred, but it is also in the latter portion of the time period, where ablation increased.

Finally, you’ve not adequately addressed my argument on your approach here:

Your entire approach to this subject is wrong. You seem to be treating each study as inseparable wholes, only one of which can possibly be correct. Instead, you need to understand that the data and methods of each study can and should be examined in an effort to determine the truth, which will most likely not be in line with any particular study.

You responded by providing a list of points that you have “proven”, but that did not answer my argument, which is that you are approaching this all wrong. This shouldn’t be about finding the most correct study. Instead, we should be capable of assessing the methods and data from all studies (including the Thomas and Box studies), and making a determination on our own, which is what the IPCC did. You have created for yourself a convenient argument, which basically leaves you with two choices: either the IPCC report is in full agreement with the Johannessen and Zwally studies, or it ignored them. The reality is much more complicated, and I hope you can understand that.

Please adequately address my arguments, rather than trivializing them and criticizing me for trying to prove exactly what you said I should prove in order to address your argument.

Jason Leggett Says:
December 12th, 2007 at 7:55 pm

Sorry for the double post. I received an error on the first try, so I thought it didn’t go.

Max Says:
December 12th, 2007 at 8:02 pm

Hi Jason,

In your December 12, 2:53pm post you wrote: “You have argued that ERS data is better than the sparse ATM data, and I agree with that for the flat areas in higher elevations, but (1) Zwally used ERS data in some of these areas (beyond where Johannessen felt they were reliable), and (2) this does not negate the fact that where ATM data was used in the Zwally study, there is no data past 1999.

Please adequately address my arguments, rather than trivializing them and criticizing me for trying to prove exactly what you said I should prove in order to address your argument.”

To your “argument (1)”: If you take the time to read Zwally’s report (that concluded a net mass gain of the GIS over his 10+ year study period), you will discover that Zwally used ERS data, ATM data and “optimum interpretation” (he quite transparently shows his conclusions for 3 cases: ERS only, ERS + ATM and ERS + ATM + “opt. interp.”; these three cases show a net gain in GIS over the study period (excluding a 6-month period of heavy snowfall, which had been truncated from the period) of +60.8 Gt/a, +31.9 Gt/a and +10.8 Gt/a respectively. You seem to insinuate that Zwally made a mistake in his approach, which gave him an erroneously high mass gain where there should have been a mass loss. Yet you steadfastly refuse to even acknowledge (a) that Zwally cut off a period of heavy snowfall from his study (winter-spring 2002-03) and (b) that adding this period back in would show more ice gain than Zwally concluded, NOT less. I have taken a stand on your argument and laid it to rest; now you must take a stand on my argument.

To your “argument (2)”: This is a totally stupid argument, Jason, and you know it. You can’t put ATM data into Zwally’s study that does not even exist. There is no ATM data within Zwally’s study period beyond 1999, is there? So I have laid your argument (2) to rest.

With your latest 1200+ word post you have not brought evidence that demonstrates that Zwally conclusions should be ignored because they have been proven to be incorrect.

Your critique of the report, or some other scientist’s e-mail critique means nothing. The report stands until its author retracts it by acknowledging its erroneous conclusion.

I have brought evidence that Johannessen/Zwally studies are the only ones that cover the entire period that is also the period of the IPCC claim.

You have been unable to deny this fact; you have also been unable to come up with any other report that covers the entire time frame.

I have shown you that these studies demonstrated and concluded a net mass gain in GIS over this entire study period, largely resulting from a hitherto unknown massive increase in the “vast interior areas above 1500 meters”, and that this was “in contrast to previous reports of high-elevation balance”.

I have shown you that IPCC ignored (or “rejected”, or “failed to accept as correct”) this conclusion in making exactly the opposite claim (i.e. a net mass loss in GIS for exactly the same time period).

Those are the facts, Jason.

Black Wallaby has shown you in great detail how absurd your argumentation is on the relative validity of Thomas versus Johannessen/Zwally, which you use to somehow rationalize WHY IPCC chose to ignore the Johannessen/Zwally reports in making its contradictory claim.

I have repeatedly told you that I know there are other reports out there that cover different study periods and come to different conclusions than Johannessen/Zwally, and I never made the claim that IPCC ignored these other reports. In fact, it appears that they embraced them enthusiastically, since they showed conclusions that fit the IPCC claim, while Johannessen/Zwally did not, so they were ignored.

Now concede and move on. This has become utterly boring.

Regards,

Max

PS Jason, I see you have sent yet another long-winded post where you ask me to respond to a whole bunch of meaningless statements. I have answered your previous post here, and I have shown you the evidence to prove my point. You have not been able to bring contradictory evidence. Please understand that I do not intend to continue responding an endless list of ever-changing argumentation on your behalf. It is boring and senseless.

Max Says:
December 12th, 2007 at 8:11 pm

Hi Jason,

See that your latest is just a repeat of earlier post which I already answered. But my statement still stands that I do not intend to continue responding to an endless list of ever-changing argumentation on your behalf, because it is boring and senseless.

Regards,

Max

Max Says:
December 13th, 2007 at 4:55 am

Hi Jason,

Before you beat me up for not responding to each and every one of the points in your last post, rather than just covering the ones at the end, which you asked me to address, I will make sure that all points are covered, so we can finally wrap up this discussion, once and for all.

You wrote: “Now, first of all, I’ve tried to explain that your approach here is all wrong, so we need more options than you’ve provided. Rather than being limited to pointing out “obvious errors” in a study, thereby “rendering its conclusions meaningless”, we should be able to understand that one can examine the methods and findings of various studies and simply take notice of potential reasons for any discrepancies in an effort to find the correct value for mass balance of the GIS. This does not necessarily have to render anything “meaningless”, as ALL methods and analyses have disadvantages.”

So far, you have not said much except that my approach is wrong, despite using an abundance of words. What am I supposed to do with the above argumentation from you? It does not shed any new light on our discussion, so I will treat it as “background noise”. BTW, I do agree with your statement that “ALL methods and analyses have disadvantages”.

You wrote: “Second, and the main point I wanted to make, is that pointing out issues with the Zwally study is not a distraction from determining whether the IPCC ignored research. It is all part of that process. You provided three options besides ignoring a study, including finding “errors” with a study. Now, you’re saying that I’d rather point out issues with the Zwally study INSTEAD of address whether the IPCC ignored research. This is a very frustrating reversal of your own argument. Rather than trying to confuse and obfuscate, maybe you could actually address my points? And I mean actually address them, rather than dismissing or trivilizing them.”

Again, I have a hard time figuring out exactly what you are trying to say here. There may be errors in the Zwally study (as I pointed out to you in the truncated heavy snowfall winter season, for example), but this study, including the basic data provided by the Johannessen study, is the best available fit for the 10+ year time period directly coinciding with the time period of the IPCC claim of net mass loss, and this is the study that was by definition “not accepted as correct” (or “rejected”, or “ignored”) by IPCC when it made a claim directly contradicting this study.

You wrote: “Yes, I realize that there are disadvantages to the Thomas study, but there are disadvantages to EVERY study, and you have yet to adequately address the problems I’ve brought to your attention with the Zwally study.”

Jason, please get it through your skull that I am not trying to second-guess Zwally’s study, or for that matter, the Thomas study. I just said that the Johannessen/Zwally studies were the only ones that covered a 10+ year continuum that coincided with the time period of the IPCC claim, and that the other studies you brought up (including Thomas) neither cover a 10+ year continuum nor cover the entire time period of the IPCC claim, so are not directly comparable.

You wrote: “Yes, both Thomas and Zwally applied corrections for firn densification, but Zwally used the density of ice for the increases in the higher elevations, while Thomas used a conservative 600 kg/m^3.”

Again, Jason, we are not here to discuss details of how Zwally and Thomas decided to handle volume conversion to mass or who is more correct here. This is quite apparently a matter of judgment, where Zwally and Thomas had a different opinion. YOUR opinion (or, for that matter, MY opinion) on this is really immaterial.

Your last point was: “How about supplying some numbers in the margins, and maybe an estimate of how much losses might have occurred in 5% of the GIS in the marginal areas? I’d be glad to do the math for you if you like.”

Please don’t do some “might have” math here, Jason. We have played that game before, when you were providing “could conceivably have been” math. This is all beside the point. There was no record covering the 10+ year continuum of Johannesen/Zwally for this marginal area, so the discussion is purely hypothetical.

Now, after taking the time to address every point in your long post (including the two points to which you asked me to respond in your earlier post, and to which I did respond in my previous post), we are left with the concluding remarks of my previous post, which I will repeat, just so they do not go unnoticed in all this verbal blah blah:

· I have brought evidence that Johannessen/Zwally studies are the only ones that cover the entire period that is also the period of the IPCC claim.

· You have been unable to deny this fact; you have also been unable to come up with any other report that covers the entire time frame.

· I have shown you that, based on tens of millions of ERS data points, these studies demonstrated and concluded a net mass gain in GIS over this entire study period, largely resulting from a hitherto unknown massive increase in the “vast interior areas above 1500 meters”, and that this was “in contrast to previous reports of high-elevation balance”.

· I have shown you that IPCC ignored (or “rejected”, or “failed to accept as correct”) this conclusion in making exactly the opposite claim (i.e. a net mass loss in GIS for exactly the same time period).

Those are the facts, Jason.

Black Wallaby has shown you in excruciating detail how totally absurd your argumentation is on the relative validity of Thomas versus Johannessen/Zwally, which you use to somehow rationalize WHY IPCC chose to ignore the Johannessen/Zwally reports in making its contradictory claim.

Now concede and move on. This has become utterly boring.

Regards,

Max

Black Wallaby Says:
December 13th, 2007 at 6:50 am

Hi Reasic, further my December 12th, 2007 at 8:33 am (page 47)
I’m reissuing it with an added point that I overlooked before, so that it does not escape your attention:

Reasic, REUR December 11th, 2007 at 6:00 pm
Reasic, sorry, I’m just starting to have actual fun again on “Greenland”!

Oh my my, Reasic, you’re a one for silly Emails, aren’t you!? You naughty boy!
QUOTE: “[Apparently Dr Thomas responded in part; to something we know not!]…But of greater concern is that radar altimetry (which Zwally uses) is affected by changes in surface snow. Recent, well-documented warming causes snow to be wetter and raises the radar reflecting horizon, making it look as if the elevation is increasing. This has a serious effect on radar results…”

Reasic! Can’t you see that this (and the rest) is a tad vaporous, or maybe incomplete in detail?

However, since you are so good with silly Emails, how about you ask for some further clarification from Dr. Thomas? (herein under called ‘you’)

I suggest;
1A… When you say; “raises the radar reflection horizon” and “this has a serious effect on radar results”, What order of magnitude do you mean? Millimetres? Centimetres? Elephants?

2B … As “summer” starts, there will be progressive melting and lowering of surface snow elevation due to run-off and to firn-ice compaction, probably accelerating to a peak in September, and easing off in October. Does this mean that the ERS “radar reflection horizon” gradually heightens and then falls during the continuous observation period, giving the impression that the ice melt rate is slowing with more warming, or even growing rather than actually shrinking? (and then reversing?) Uh?, Or, to put it more precisely; Hmmmmm!?

3C… Given that the ERS data were gathered continuously in ALL weathers unaffected by clouds etc, over an eleven year period, would not the discrepancy you allege be detectable as a summer anomaly? (If necessary, see also below) Do you disagree?

4D … IF there was such an anomaly, it amounts to a calibration problem that can be studied over the full eleven years, taking special note of transitions between last winter snow, and first melting, and between last melting and first freezing, and/or first snow. By your inferences, there should be a jump in calibration at around these points, yielding good data for seasonal calibrations. (with eleven shots at it) Do you disagree?

5E … In your study using ATM data, there were large temporal and spatial inadequacies, but you were somehow able to determine trends based on scant data found in four summers in May-June, or June-July. Consequently, you were unable to use full-year data, or even data for the whole island at any one time. Would you please advise your rationale for using 4 x approximately mid summer partial data only to determine trends, in an attempt to imitate a solid eleven year period, per Ola J’?

6F … If you remain convinced that ESA supported by GFSC (NASA) were unable to develop effective algorithms for summer, then your “part-of-year-only”, approach could be equally applied to say December or January x 11 ERS data, when there should be adequate snow cover to allay your concerns on reflection horizon.

7G … Have you actually checked this (point 6F) out, or sought any other advice from Johannessen or any of his five teams, or ESA or GFSC?

8H … Do you do know if ESA tested a choice of ERS radar wavelength changes to modify reflection properties to best effect? Capice?

9I … You state that the ATM method, when adapted from an adequate mapping use to a more sophisticated new purpose of ice-sheet change survey yielded rather low accuracy at plus or minus 10 cm. Johannessen reports better accuracy with ERS. You do not indicate any magnitude for your alleged un-calibrated reflection error, but are you claiming that it is worse cumulatively than plus or minus 10 cm? (The best you can claim for ATM) If so, what is your new number?

10J … In your 2006 paper, you gave the impression, strongly and repeatedly, that your greatest concern with ERS radar, was its large footprint over sloping surfaces. Has that concern now receded? Did you find-out about data processing algorithms and stuff like that? Did you not previously realize that surveying the dynamic oceans also requires complex software, and that ESA knowingly had to do something else for ice-sheets? Why have you changed your emphasis?

11K … When you say “recent, well-documented warming causes snow to be wetter”, what do you mean by recent? (And BTW what is: “well documented”?) According to some sources, 2002 was a record high melt year, (but on a close par with 1987, repeat 1987), but since then, melt levels have reduced. (That is contrary to well documented RECENT VERY ALARMING melting). There are also published works that declare that melting in Greenland in the early 1900’s was probably greater than now, if the recorded instrumental temperatures are an indicator of the main driver for melting. Should this not receive some perusal in your studies, and in YOUR AUTHORSHIP of IPCC report 2007?

12L … Johannessen et al 2005 identified high inter-annual variability, tied at least in part to the NAO climate index, as a VERY IMPORTANT finding, which was DISCOVERED ONLY as a consequence of CONTINUOUS observation over a TOTAL of eleven years. This information was not possible for you to find, because of your logistically incapable data coverage of that eleven year period etc. (That is not to imply that the HUMAN EFFORT involved with you and your colleagues was trivial …. certainly NO…. it is more a question of the replacing far more powerful technology!) How do you justify projecting contrary trends with your relatively primitive (even if very hard earned) scant data, given the high inter-annual variability detected by an immensely more capable technology?

13M … If you argue a calibration error in Johannessen’s work, you might consider that IF that error actually exists, it should be reasonably constant, year to year, somewhat resembling a zero error, for summer, over the entire eleven years. If you accept that reasoning, then the VARIABILITY as found, would have to be strong data. Repeat; the VARIABILITY! Do you disagree?

14N … OK, if you accept that there is inter-annual variability, regardless of any absolute calibration, right or wrong, should you not apply this variability to adjust your very minimal baseline? Do you disagree?

Sorry, I add another one on this re-issue herewith:

15O … The issue you have concerning raised reflective horizon over melting surfaces, is relative to what? Are you claiming that the reflection is from above the actual surface? If such a problem exists, it would be at lower altitudes where melting is most important in “summer”. Meanwhile, whilst there is snow cover, particularly during winter, the SRALT radar penetrates into the snow before reflection and back-scatter, and various complex signals related to grain-size etc can be decoded. That penetration also requires calibration, without which readings would seriously UNDER-ESTIMATE the snow build-up. It appears that you are claiming a calibration error over melting surfaces, resulting in understatement of the loss in those regions. OK, so why not push that ESA also underdetermined the snow build-up, since there are no sensible SURFACE reflections from snow, but fro lower down?

You have my permission to Email this stuff to Thomass in YOUR own name, but personally I see absolutely no value in doing so….I leave it to your impetuosity or naiveté.

Cheers, Black Wallaby.

Black Wallaby Says:
December 13th, 2007 at 7:16 am

Hi Reasic,

Stop hiding from the view of potential visitors to an appropriate forum for the ANTARCTICA debate!

Use your influence with Jeff McIntire-Strasburg, to highlight it under your authorship as a hot topic. After all, it is so HOT down there that all the ice is melting, with icebergs floating past New Zealand and many other horrors; right?

So why not openly debate that “good news” with the world out there?

Cheers, Black Wallaby

Black Wallaby Says:
December 13th, 2007 at 7:27 am

Hi Reasic reur December 12th, 2007 at 7:55 pm

You apologised for posting your massive droning twice. OK, that’s a tad ameliorating, but to inflict so much sleep inducing stuff just once is bad enough, but twice?! …. More than 1200 words of eye-drooping boredom! Yes! A sincere apology from you is very much in order, but for BOTH of the offences! Why should I have to prop my chin on some pillows to prevent my forehead crashing onto my keyboard? …..have mercy!

Rather than you spend so much effort in achieving worthless word-count records, how about you give a quick answer to something of REAL significance?
I repeat the essentials of my December 11th, 2007 at 10:35 pm page 47 below, so that it does not escape your attention: A quick simple answer of YES or NO, is all that is required!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Here’s a bit of fun for you Reasic….a quickie….all it needs is a yes or no answer.
Firstly, let’s describe columns # 1-4 in the tabulation following:

1, The alphas S and W represent “summer” (or “day”) and “winter” (or “night”) of 1992 -2003 inclusive, throughout which TWO satellites continuously surveyed Greenland.
2, A period of two months when ATM (airborne topographic mapper) was adapted over the NORTHERN part of the island, if there were no clouds etc.
3, A period of two months when ATM was employed over the SOUTHERN part of the island, if there were no clouds etc.
4, The year when ICESat data became available

1……2……3……4

S
W
S……=
W
S…………..=
W
S
W
S
W
S
W
S……=
W
S…………..=
W
S
W
S
W
S
W………………………except Zwally
…………………….?
…………………….X (1994)

Johannessen identified VERY IMPORTANTLY that there was high inter-annual variability, (impossible for Thomas to determine). I therefore submit that Thomas was WRONG to claim that columns 2, 3 & 4 (combined) have ANY similarity to column 1.

(Thomas also admitted inadequate flight paths and poor accuracy for ATM.)
It also follows that with such scant data within high variability, that Thomas was incapable of projecting any sensible trend. Even Johannessen with his mountain of CONTINUOUS data over eleven years, declared inability to determine meaningful trends, because of the many variabilities!!!!!!

C’mon Reasic, give us a good laugh, and tell us that Thomas was correct in his claim of similarity!

To make it easy for you, if you say YES, that means we all roll around laughing.
If you say NO, it is a vote for common sense, and you improve your credibility rating.

Please answer YES, or NO (or less credibly since you claim to be an ENGINEER; sorry, “me no understand diagram”)

Cheers, Black Wallaby

Post new comment

Green Options

jeffmcintirestrasburg