Great Lakes ice loss at 71% since the early 1970s

[cheetah440]

I have been told that climatologists adjust for urban heat islands...... They better, since most of those 1880 placed stations are in BAKING urban environments today. Detroit city proper is so much warmer then 10 miles outside the city its unbelievable.

In June through September my own cars thermometer drops 15 degrees around 10pm when leaving the city on a sunny day. I remember a few days where Detroit was about 50 degrees around 10pm... By the time I reached my home 50 miles away, frost.

I'm not even talking about heat islands. It's obvious that the Earth looks different today than in 1880. I'm not convinced the "adjustments" are completely accurate. That entire issue is pretty laughable and I'm not convinced it hasn't added SOMETHING, regardless of "adjustments".

I'm more interested in the data sets. For example, I'm not sure the records in Europe and Russia were all that good from 1914-1918 and 1939-1945. I'm sure we are capturing far more of the planet and open ocean areas than in 1880. 70% of the planet that is ocean after all. Proxies, especially tree rings (which much of the proxy record is based) can't do a good job of covering 70% of the planet. Hell, most of it is based on trees from VERY few regions of the planet. How you can even begin to compare that to thermometer or satellite records with any certainty is something I struggle with. It should at least be viewed with skepticism. So much of our climate is regional as we are seeing in 2012 with a very warm Northeast but a frigid Europe with people dying from the cold.

It makes me wonder how much of the increase captured in the record over the last 20 yrs is due to technology capturing data that wasn't previously captured and that's why we have seen a leveling off over the last 10yrs or so.

Can anyone link to a source that shows what data sets are included by year?

[bluewave]

What if the Earth had warmed .75C from the beginning of the 19th century to the beginning of the 20th century? Or from the beginning of the 18th century to the beginning of the 19th century?

Can you tell me with the same certainty that this hasn't happened? What happened from the 8th century to the 9th century? Or from the 5th century to the 6th century? Can extremely limited regional proxies give us a clear determination on the relevance of the global data that we have over the last century?

If you do some research into the topic, it's really not that difficult to understand how they pieced everything together.

http://www.ncdc.noaa...moberg2005.html

[cheetah440]

If you do some research into the topic, it's really not that difficult to understand how they pieced everything together.

http://www.ncdc.noaa...moberg2005.html

Comparing proxies with thermometer records is like comparing an airbrushed playboy model and the girl at the bar.

Try again.

[bluewave]

Comparing proxies with thermometer records is like comparing an airbrushed playboy model and the girl at the bar.

Try again.

Come on. I think that you know better than that but are just coming here looking to get a rise out of people.

You realize that you could take all the evidence that there is from various sources and win a case in court with it.

http://green.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/01/28/arctic-waters-warmer-than-in-2000-years/

[cheetah440]

Come on. I think that you know better than that but are just coming here looking to get a rise out of people.

You realize that you could take all the evidence that there is from various sources and win a case in court with it.

http://green.blogs.n...-in-2000-years/

I'm extremely serious. What is the difference in data sets from 1880 through today? We know the records are far more accurate today than in 1880 and certainly than before 1880. Proxies are interesting but as soon as you bolt on thermometer records (to hide the decline) I'm not sure you get the same accuracy and therefore I don't believe we accurately capture all the anomalous events globally.

[bluewave]

I'm extremely serious. What is the difference in data sets from 1880 through today? We know the records are far more accurate today than in 1880 and certainly than before 1880. Proxies are interesting but as soon as you bolt on thermometer records (to hide the decline) I'm not sure you get the same accuracy and therefore I don't believe we accurately capture all the anomalous events globally.

Yeah, but if everything is pointing in the same direction you have to maybe concede that the conclusions that they drawing are correct.

https://www2.ucar.edu/atmosnews/news/846/arctic-warming-overtakes-2000-years-natural-cooling

[TerryM]

I'm extremely serious. What is the difference in data sets from 1880 through today? We know the records are far more accurate today than in 1880 and certainly than before 1880. Proxies are interesting but as soon as you bolt on thermometer records (to hide the decline) I'm not sure you get the same accuracy and therefore I don't believe we accurately capture all the anomalous events globally.

So ...

You are claiming that in 1880, it was globally warmer than today?

[WeatherRusty]

I'm extremely serious. What is the difference in data sets from 1880 through today? We know the records are far more accurate today than in 1880 and certainly than before 1880. Proxies are interesting but as soon as you bolt on thermometer records (to hide the decline) I'm not sure you get the same accuracy and therefore I don't believe we accurately capture all the anomalous events globally.

How robust is the global surface temperature record? Big question.

Maybe this will help answer that question: HERE

[ORH_wxman]

The Earth has warmed about 0.75C since the beginning of the 20th century according to HadCRUT.

The instrument record is taken to have begun in 1880. Who uses the 70's onward to make a point, other than that is the period of most rapid warming to date?

The snow argument is ridiculous based on a global average increase of 0.75C. Local and regional natural variability in all weather parameters is subject to wide variation regardless of a 0.4C-0.5C increase in global temps since the 1970's.

The question is what will local and regional snow and ice patterns look like when the global average temp is 2C-3C warmer than around the year ~1900? Is there any doubt they will be decreased most everywhere?

Uh, did you not read the thread title?

[PhillipS]

I'm extremely serious. What is the difference in data sets from 1880 through today? We know the records are far more accurate today than in 1880 and certainly than before 1880. Proxies are interesting but as soon as you bolt on thermometer records (to hide the decline) I'm not sure you get the same accuracy and therefore I don't believe we accurately capture all the anomalous events globally.

Proxy data are far from perfect, and there is a continuous search for better, more complete and robust, proxy data sets. And, as you pointed out, most proxies lack the temporal and spatial resolution of direct measurements. But scientist have to work with the data they have - not with what they would like to have in an ideal world. What's their alternative - Tarot cards?

If you don't find the current paleo reconstructions credible well . . . tough. They are the best we have until scientists go out into the field, collect their various samples (whether they're sediment cores, ice cores, tree rings, stalactites, or whatever), go back to the their labs, and produce better ones.

If you're will to actually help with research projects then you should consider Earthwatch - an organization which matches volunteers with research projects. They are currently listing 17 climate change related projects you could participate in. It might be a lot more fun than just sitting behind your keyboard and criticizing others.

[cheetah440]

So ...

You are claiming that in 1880, it was globally warmer than today?

Of course not, that's silly and odd you would conclude that was what I was implying.

I'm simply wondering how many stations were collected to derive the global temperature in 1880, in 1902, in 1923, etc. I'm asking if they captured as much of the globe as we do today. I'm also curious how the satellite recordings have changed as well.

[TerryM]

Of course not, that's silly and odd you would conclude that was what I was implying.

I'm simply wondering how many stations were collected to derive the global temperature in 1880, in 1902, in 1923, etc. I'm asking if they captured as much of the globe as we do today. I'm also curious how the satellite recordings have changed as well.

So you're not claiming that the record is wrong - you just don't like the methods they used to arrive at their conclusion?

Also you just said that claiming 1880 to have been warmer than today would be silly, so why are you asking for more data from that era.

[WeatherRusty]

I'm extremely serious. What is the difference in data sets from 1880 through today? We know the records are far more accurate today than in 1880 and certainly than before 1880. Proxies are interesting but as soon as you bolt on thermometer records (to hide the decline) I'm not sure you get the same accuracy and therefore I don't believe we accurately capture all the anomalous events globally.

How well established is the paleoclimate record? Are tree rings the primary source of data? Are there multiple, independent lines of evidence? How robust is the implied temperature record derived from proxy data?

Paleoclimatic Modeling: Global Temperature, 21,000 yrs BP, UK Met. Office HADAM2 model. Map by NOAA graphic. Click here for high resolution image

Ice Cores: Ice core being extruded from drill. Photo by Lonnie Thompson, The Ohio State University. Click here for high resolution image

Plant Macrofossils: Ponderosa Pine cone and needles. Photo by US National Park Service. Click here for high resolution image

Pollen: Pollen grains. Photo by Oak Ridge National Laboratory Click here for high resolution image

Fauna: Woolly Mammoth. Photo by Eberly College of Science, Penn State. Click here for high resolution image

Paleofire: Fire scars in Ponderosa Pine. Photo by Peter Brown, Rocky Mountain Tree-Ring Research. Click here for high resolution image

Tree-Ring: Annual Rings in a Ponderosa Pine. Photo by Peter Brown, Rocky Mountain Tree-Ring Research. Click here for high resolution image

Historical: Weather journal. Photo by climate database modernization project. Click here for high resolution weather journal image and Click here for high resolution weather room image

Borehole: Drilling Rig, San Andreas Fault Observatory at Depth (SAFOD). Photo by US Geological Survey. Click here for high resolution image

Paleoceanography: Icebergs in the North Atlantic. Photo by Ann Jennings, University of Colorado. Click here for high resolution image

Speleothems: Stalactites and Stalagmites in Villars Cave, France. Photo by Dominique Genty, CNRS/LSCE. Click here for high resolution image

Coral: Coral core being extracted from underwater drill. Photo by Emma Hickerson/Flower Garden Banks National Marine Sanctuary. Click here for high resolution image

Insect: Insect skelton. Photo by Oliver Heiri1, Laboratory of Palaeobotany and Palynology, Utrecht University, The Netherlands. Click here for high resolution image

Climate Reconstructions: Reconstruction of the post-episode effects of the Santa Maria volcanic eruption in 1902. Map by Erich Fischer: in "Regional and Seasonal Impact of Volcanic Eruptions of European Climate over the Last Centuries", Diploma thesis, University of Bern, 2003. Click here for high resolution image

Climate Forcing: A solar prominence captured on September 14, 1999. Photo by NASA. Click here for high resolution image

Lake Sediments: Laguna Pallcacocha, Ecuador. Photo by Chris Moy, Stanford University. Click here for high resolution image

Loess: Jiuzhoutai Loess Section in China. Photo by Yu Li, Key Laboratory of Western China's Environmental Systems, College of Earth and Environment Sciences, Lanzhou University, China Click here for high resolution image

Try this one: HERE

[cheetah440]

So you're not claiming that the record is wrong - you just don't like the methods they used to arrive at their conclusion?

Also you just said that claiming 1880 to have been warmer than today would be silly, so why are you asking for more data from that era.

claiming the record could be inaccurate isn't the same as claiming 1880 was warmer than today.

[cheetah440]

How robust is the global surface temperature record? Big question.

Maybe this will help answer that question: HERE

Thanks, this looks like a good informative read.

[Jonger]

I'm not even talking about heat islands. It's obvious that the Earth looks different today than in 1880. I'm not convinced the "adjustments" are completely accurate. That entire issue is pretty laughable and I'm not convinced it hasn't added SOMETHING, regardless of "adjustments".

I'm more interested in the data sets. For example, I'm not sure the records in Europe and Russia were all that good from 1914-1918 and 1939-1945. I'm sure we are capturing far more of the planet and open ocean areas than in 1880. 70% of the planet that is ocean after all. Proxies, especially tree rings (which much of the proxy record is based) can't do a good job of covering 70% of the planet. Hell, most of it is based on trees from VERY few regions of the planet. How you can even begin to compare that to thermometer or satellite records with any certainty is something I struggle with. It should at least be viewed with skepticism. So much of our climate is regional as we are seeing in 2012 with a very warm Northeast but a frigid Europe with people dying from the cold.

It makes me wonder how much of the increase captured in the record over the last 20 yrs is due to technology capturing data that wasn't previously captured and that's why we have seen a leveling off over the last 10yrs or so.

Can anyone link to a source that shows what data sets are included by year?

I have a hard time buying any data before the middle of the 20th century. I accept all climate change data after that point. The world has warmed approximately a half a degree C since then.

People living in 2200AD will have indisputable 250 years of data to base changes on. We have a solid 50-60 years.

[WeatherRusty]

Uh, did you not read the thread title?

Hey, I don't like the use of truncated data series either, or the implications drawn from cherry picked time periods. What percentage of ice loss on the lakes would be shown to have occurred over the entire observational record?

[PhillipS]

Of course not, that's silly and odd you would conclude that was what I was implying.

I'm simply wondering how many stations were collected to derive the global temperature in 1880, in 1902, in 1923, etc. I'm asking if they captured as much of the globe as we do today. I'm also curious how the satellite recordings have changed as well.

All of the 1.6 billion temperature records used in the BEST analysis are available on-line here. You will have to do some digging to find the info you are after but Steve Mosher and others have put together some tools, also available on-line, to assist you.

[ORH_wxman]

Hey, I don't like the use of truncated data series either, or the implications drawn from cherry picked time periods. What percentage of ice loss on the lakes would be shown to have occurred over the entire observational record?

I couldn't tell you. Based on the string of very warm winters Chicago and Detroit had in the late 1870s into the 1880s, I'd imagine there were some low ice years in there. If you started in the early 1900s during a period of very cold GL winters, I'm sure the ice loss would look greater...then lower again if you started in the 1930s-1950s warm winters.

[Jonger]

I couldn't tell you. Based on the string of very warm winters Chicago and Detroit had in the late 1870s into the 1880s, I'd imagine there were some low ice years in there. If you started in the early 1900s during a period of very cold GL winters, I'm sure the ice loss would look greater...then lower again if you started in the 1930s-1950s warm winters.

WW2 is a major demarcation line in modern technology. Radar was advanced in this time frame and weather science was highly advanced due to planning attacks. I would suspect that ice in the arctic was probably charted during the war to some high levels of accuracy.

This is why I have so much trouble with pre-war global science.

[The_Global_Warmer]

Hey, I don't like the use of truncated data series either, or the implications drawn from cherry picked time periods. What percentage of ice loss on the lakes would be shown to have occurred over the entire observational record?

Likely higher.

Anyone who has common sense or can use practicality as a basic thought process can say this:

Glaciers have been melting at an increasing rate or steady rate since? The late 1800s.

so go back to the time when glaciers had a steady ice mass balance. Study the arctic ice and Hudson Bay ice.

There are multiple reports the Hudson Bay in the 1700s and 1800s would only be ice free around 3-4 months. July, Aug, Sept, Oct?

This variability thing is hogwash. There will always be variability as long a there is a tilt to the Earth and Steady ice on the Earth.

But that doesn't mean it hasn't continued to warm upwards.

We have good reason to believe Arctic sea ice was at the min around 9-12 mil km2 in summer for a long steady period. This would indicate a larger cold pool and more severe and early starts to winter overall.

That makes it very likely the lakes would have more ice coverage in the past. With less chances for nil or close to nil ice coverage.

It might only be 10-20 percent higher between 1800-1900 and the last 20 year period.

But over that long it shows a steady but colder climate.

What is important to realize is the math behind how much Ice has been lost. Whether it be glaciers, fast ice, sea ice.

We have lost ice ridges that are a upwards of a half mile long and 50-100M thick in waterways between 75-80N that melted out pretty quickly, that are not gone.

So my guess is warming has been taking place at an ever increasing rate.

but much slower pre 1970s.

[Jonger]

Likely higher.

Anyone who has common sense or can use practicality as a basic thought process can say this:

Glaciers have been melting at an increasing rate or steady rate since? The late 1800s.

so go back to the time when glaciers had a steady ice mass balance. Study the arctic ice and Hudson Bay ice.

There are multiple reports the Hudson Bay in the 1700s and 1800s would only be ice free around 3-4 months. July, Aug, Sept, Oct?

This variability thing is hogwash. There will always be variability as long a there is a tilt to the Earth and Steady ice on the Earth.

But that doesn't mean it hasn't continued to warm upwards.

We have good reason to believe Arctic sea ice was at the min around 9-12 mil km2 in summer for a long steady period. This would indicate a larger cold pool and more severe and early starts to winter overall.

That makes it very likely the lakes would have more ice coverage in the past. With less chances for nil or close to nil ice coverage.

It might only be 10-20 percent higher between 1800-1900 and the last 20 year period.

But over that long it shows a steady but colder climate.

What is important to realize is the math behind how much Ice has been lost. Whether it be glaciers, fast ice, sea ice.

We have lost ice ridges that are a upwards of a half mile long and 50-100M thick in waterways between 75-80N that melted out pretty quickly, that are not gone.

So my guess is warming has been taking place at an ever increasing rate.

but much slower pre 1970s.

Steady ice mass balance eh? Zero verifiable proof of that.

[michsnowfreak]

I couldn't tell you. Based on the string of very warm winters Chicago and Detroit had in the late 1870s into the 1880s, I'd imagine there were some low ice years in there. If you started in the early 1900s during a period of very cold GL winters, I'm sure the ice loss would look greater...then lower again if you started in the 1930s-1950s warm winters.

What was REALLY crazy about the 1870s-1880s winters, is they were a constant battle of extremes. We think our extremes of 2010-11 compared to 2011-12 is something, thats nothing compared to that timeframe.

Winters like 1877-78, 1879-80, 1881-82, and 1889-90 are downright historic for their warmth and snowlessness in the midwest and Lakes. 1877-78 has stood the test of time and remains known as the benchmark "year without a winter" in Minnesota (it was extremely warm in Detroit also, but we did manage a monster 15.7" snowstorm at the end of Jan, not before tales of grass growing a foot high in Jan). 1879-80 featured tremendous Jan warmth, and 1881-82 stands to this day as Detroits warmest winter (by several degrees no less) and snowfall pitifully totaled 13.2" from a few nickels and dimes. 1889-90 is another winter where local newspapers reported green grass in January and peach limbs in "full blow" in Feb, and it stands as Detroits only DJF month on record with not a flake of snow (Dec 1889). If we had ONE of these 4 winters I just mentioned nowadays, LET ALONE all 4, the GW crowd would be having the field day to end all field days. And fwiw, I can verify per the local Herald newspapers, boaters utilized the water "as if it were summer" all winter long in 1881-82, and as of Feb 1890 "not an ounce of ice yet collected" (some ice formed in March).

Sandwiched in between that you have the snowiest winter on record with 93.6" in Detroit and 97.2" in Lansing in 1880-81, along with brutal cold (those are the only two stations with reliable snowfall data at the time, though I should note the Laura Ingalls Wilder book "The Long Winter" takes place in 1880-81 in Dakota territory). And the brutally cold 1874-75 which to this day holds the record for most temps below -15 in a single winter in Detroit. So how crazy would these up and down year-to-year oscillations look on a graph that tries to show a "normal" line?

[The_Global_Warmer]

Steady ice mass balance eh? Zero verifiable proof of that.

I am not sure what you are implying. I assume its saying that the ice has been melting for a long time, since the lia or before that

Yes I am there has been quite a bit of ice loss from the lia to the agw era

did you know even during the last arctic warm period ice was still near max avg thickness.

The 1940s and 1950s saw a dip in the arctic from 9-11 mil on the extent to closer to 9 mil km2. Then another slow drop kept going in the 60s threw 80s.

Finally the balance broke. Mt pinobulto gave us a short higher ice period. Then the major changes came when the ice could no longer stop in situ warming and warm air intrusions from crushing the ice.

Right now the arctic is in a positive fee

back loop.

Some believe its the natural variance dominating it.

Some think its both with rapid feedback taking over as the main factor.

Either way this has destabilized the system causing wild erratic changes.

This decade wil tell us a lot about whats causing it.

[WeatherRusty]

What this boils down to is attribution. Yes it has been warm in the past and it has been cold, the ice has advanced and thickened while at other times it has dwindled. All part of natural variability which has gone on forever and will continue to go on forever.

The science of climatology is informing us that a new factor has been introduced into the mix of factors driving climate change and it is us and our activities. Global temperature is rising and climate is changing in ways it would not be, if it were not for the human factor. The science also informs us that these changes are on a trajectory to move the world very rapidly (in geological terms) to a state quite outside what modern human societies and the biosphere have developed in and are adapted to.

Either you accept that science or you don't, or maybe you're not sure what to think. Over the years I have been active here on this forum, I and others have tried our best to inform those of the scientific basis for this, at first glance, rather astounding claim.

What society does with this scientific information remains to be seen, but to do nothing meaningful is a choice and time is not on our side.

[dabize]

What this boils down to is attribution. Yes it has been warm in the past and it has been cold, the ice has advanced and thickened while at other times it has dwindled. All part of natural variability which has gone on forever and will continue to go on forever.

The science of climatology is informing us that a new factor has been introduced into the mix of factors driving climate change and it is us and our activities. Global temperature is rising and climate is changing in ways it would not be, if it were not for the human factor. The science also informs us that these changes are on a trajectory to move the world very rapidly (in geological terms) to a state quite outside what modern human societies and the biosphere have developed in and are adapted to.

People also seem to forget that while climate has indeed changed more radically in the past than it is doing currently (and possibly will in the future due to AGW - we don't know yet) - the kicker is that human civilization has not had to survive such changes.

It is one thing for tribes of humans in the Pleistocene to adjust to rapid cooling or warming trends - they just moved on.

It is quite another thing for them to drag their cities after them.........

[cheetah440]

What this boils down to is attribution. Yes it has been warm in the past and it has been cold, the ice has advanced and thickened while at other times it has dwindled. All part of natural variability which has gone on forever and will continue to go on forever.

The science of climatology is informing us that a new factor has been introduced into the mix of factors driving climate change and it is us and our activities. Global temperature is rising and climate is changing in ways it would not be, if it were not for the human factor. The science also informs us that these changes are on a trajectory to move the world very rapidly (in geological terms) to a state quite outside what modern human societies and the biosphere have developed in and are adapted to.

Either you accept that science or you don't, or maybe you're not sure what to think. Over the years I have been active here on this forum, I and others have tried our best to inform those of the scientific basis for this, at first glance, rather astounding claim.

What society does with this scientific information remains to be seen, but to do nothing meaningful is a choice and time is not on our side.

actually, no it doesn't. The science theorizes this, it doesn't inform us of this. And furthermore, we can adapt to even the most outlandish, dire predictions. To say we are "rapidly" moving to a climate we can't adapt to, as you have done here, is pure rubbish. You state this as if it is a certainty, and as we know from 20 yrs of the false predictions from the doomsayers, climate science predictions and theories are anything but certain.

[cheetah440]

People also seem to forget that while climate has indeed changed more radically in the past than it is doing currently (and possibly will in the future due to AGW - we don't know yet) - the kicker is that human civilization has not had to survive such changes.

It is one thing for tribes of humans in the Pleistocene to adjust to rapid cooling or warming trends - they just moved on.

It is quite another thing for them to drag their cities after them.........

let us know when a city is in danger. New Orleans is built 6ft below sea level and going strong. I would think it would be the first casualty. I'd be willing to wager my life's savings that New Orleans will still be here in 50 yrs (I probably won't though). And if NO at 6ft BELOW sea level is still going strong, I'm not sure there's much to worry about and certainly no need for mass city migrations. More hype and doom that will never come to be.

Anyway, we past the tipping point a long time ago, or so we were told, so what's the point?

[TerryM]

let us know when a city is in danger. New Orleans is built 6ft below sea level and going strong. I would think it would be the first casualty. I'd be willing to wager my life's savings that New Orleans will still be here in 50 yrs (I probably won't though). And if NO at 6ft BELOW sea level is still going strong, I'm not sure there's much to worry about and certainly no need for mass city migrations. More hype and doom that will never come to be.

Anyway, we past the tipping point a long time ago, or so we were told, so what's the point?

As I recall, dire predictions - doomsday if you would - were made regarding New Orleans. Ignoring them didn't work out too well did it?

Today we're ignoring dire predictions that New York's subway system may become inundated. We'll have to wait a little to see how that one works out.

[SVT450R]

As I recall, dire predictions - doomsday if you would - were made regarding New Orleans. Ignoring them didn't work out too well did it?

Today we're ignoring dire predictions that New York's subway system may become inundated. We'll have to wait a little to see how that one works out.

I take it you don't realize that NYC subway systems pumps 10+ million gallon of water every single day and that if the entire pumping system was shut off they would fill within hours.