Tag Archives: NOAA

The United States’ National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

Sea Ice and Swells in the Beaufort Sea in the Summer of 2014

Waves, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Today we’re going to delve into the application of surf science in the Arctic. If you’re not already familiar with the basics of how the best surf is created then perhaps you might first wish to take a detour to the StormSurf “Wave Basics” article:

Wind waves, though rideable, are not the optimal type of wave one likes to ride. Swells are much better. Wind waves are only the raw material that swells are made from. But, the more energy wind waves accumulate while being driven by wind, the greater the likelihood they will transform into a swell. Enough energy and the swell can travel the entire circumference of the globe with only a slow decay in size!

During a typical open ocean winter storm, one could expect to see winds of 45-55 kts blowing over 600-1000 nautical miles for 36 hours. In such a storm, the average highest wind waves (or ‘seas’) commonly reach 30-35 ft towards the center of the fetch area and produce a swell with a period of 17-20 secs.

Regular readers may recall that on August 24th 2014 we revealed this WaveWatch III “surf forecast” for the Beaufort Sea, which lies off the north coast of Alaska and the Canadian Northwest Territories (i.e. top center of the map):
alaska.hs.f009h-20140824and noted that the 2 meter waves depicted:

Have blasted past Point Barrow and are currently heading straight for the Beaufort Sea Marginal Ice Zone.

Here’s a video from the University of Washington’s Applied Physics Laboratory which explains that the Marginal Ice Zone is:

The area between declining unbroken sea ice and the expanding area of open water.

The theoretical significance of such swells has been discussed in a number of academic papers recently. Take for example these extracts from “Swell and sea in the emerging Arctic Ocean” by Jim Thomson from the University of Washington and W. Erick Rogers from the US Naval Research Laboratory. Note first of all that the authors distinguish between “wind seas” and “swells” as follows:

Pure wind seas have a wave age less than one, indicating that the wind is driving the waves, and these points cluster largely below the Pierson–Moskowitz limit. Swells have a wave age greater than one, indicating that the waves are outrunning the wind.

They then go on to use some more terms very familiar to the average surfer:

Ocean surface waves (sea and swell) are generated by winds blowing over a distance (fetch) for a duration of time. In the Arctic Ocean, fetch varies seasonally from essentially zero in winter to hundreds of kilometers in recent summers. Using in situ observations of waves in the central Beaufort Sea, combined with a numerical wave model and satellite sea ice observations, we show that wave energy scales with fetch throughout the seasonal ice cycle. Furthermore, we show that the increased open water of 2012 allowed waves to develop beyond pure wind seas and evolve into swells. The swells remain tied to the available fetch, however, because fetch is a proxy for the basin size in which the wave evolution occurs. Thus, both sea and swell depend on the open water fetch in the Arctic, because the swell is regionally driven. This suggests that further reductions in seasonal ice cover in the future will result in larger waves, which in turn provide a mechanism to break up sea ice and accelerate ice retreat.

It is possible that the increased wave activity will be the feedback mechanism which drives the Arctic system toward an ice-free summer. This would be a remarkable departure from historical conditions in the Arctic, with potentially wide-ranging implications for the air-water-ice system and the humans attempting to operate there.

In practice there were several more swells that impacted the Beaufort Sea marginal ice zone over the course of the next couple of weeks. Here’s what the charts looked like, as visualised by MagicSeaweed.com rather than NOAA:

Beaufort Sea on August 27th 2014 - Winds / Wave Height / Wave Period
Beaufort Sea on August 27th 2014 – Winds / Wave Height / Wave Period
Beaufort Sea on September 1st 2014 - Wind / Swell / Period
Beaufort Sea on September 1st 2014 – Winds / Wave Height / Wave Period
Beaufort Sea on September 7th 2014 - Wind / Swell / Period
Beaufort Sea on September 7th 2014 – Winds / Wave Height / Wave Period

Note that on the right of each set of three is a depiction of the period of the waves in question. As StormSurf points out:

Chop tends to have a period ranging from 3-8 seconds. That is, there is anywhere from 3-8 seconds between each wave crest. Wind waves range from 9-12 seconds. Ground swells range from 13-15 seconds, and strong ground swells have a period anywhere from 16-25 or more seconds.

Thus the final swell on September 7th was actually the best of the bunch, with a small area of waves over 10 feet in height and with a period of over 9 seconds. According to StormSurf those are merely “wind waves” and not yet a full blown “swell”. To give you a feel for such waves here’s what some “wind waves” hitting the beach at Barrow looked like on September 4th 2014:

BarrowCam_20140904_0834

 

Next here’s another video that reveals what effect those series of waves had on the sea ice in the Beaufort Sea:

For future reference here also is the same swell described by Thomson and Rogers, but illustrated in an identical “surfer friendly” format to the 2014 swells we’ve been looking at:

Beaufort Sea on September 18th 2012 - Wind / Swell / Period
Beaufort Sea on September 18th 2012 – Winds / Wave Height / Wave Period

whilst here is the swell produced by the “Great Arctic Cyclone” of early August 2012, also mentioned in passing by Thomson and Rogers:

Beaufort Sea on August 5th 2012 - Winds / Wave Height / Wave Period
Beaufort Sea on August 5th 2012 – Winds / Wave Height / Wave Period

As you can see, if you’re a surfer used to tracking swells across the world’s oceans at least, whilst the September 2012 swell was indeed rather more substantial than those we have looked at in 2014, with a height in excess of 20 feet, the period was too short to qualify as a full blown swell and it was in fact directed away from the ice edge rather than towards it. Here’s what that 2012 swell looked like once it reached Barrow:

BarrowCam_20120918_0804

All of which does rather make one wonder what might happen if a slightly longer period swell directed at the ice edge in the Beaufort Sea were to occur at some point in the not too distant future? Whilst we all wait with bated breath to discover what that future holds for the sea ice in the Arctic, not to mention the beach at Barrow, here’s another video about the 2014 Marginal Ice Zone Program, which summarises the year’s campaign as a whole:

Note that Craig Lee says that:

We had very little wave activity. It was surprisingly calm when we were out there in the Araon, both when we were in the ice and in the open water. There just wasn’t much wind, and so there weren’t very many surface waves.

However at least one of the “robots” he refers to did discover some significant wave activity. Here’s a visualisation of SWIFT 11‘s record of significant wave height as it floated across the Beaufort Sea in the summer of 2014:

2014-Swift11-WaveHeight

I don’t know about you, but I don’t think I would describe 4.5 meter waves as “surprisingly calm”, especially in the Arctic!

 

 

Tricks Used by David Rose to Deceive

Psychology, , , , , , , , , , ,

Regular readers of our so far somewhat surreal reporting from up here in the penthouse suite at the summit of the Great White Con ivory towers will no doubt have noticed that we like to concentrate on the facts about the Arctic, whilst occasionally naively exploring assorted psychological aspects of journeying through the “denialosphere”.

Today, however, we’re branching out in a different direction with the aid of our first ever guest post. It has been carefully crafted by Sou Bundanga of the HotWhopper blog, on the topic of the “journalistic tricks that professional disinformers use”. It covers some of the same ground as a recent post of our own, albeit from a rather different angle. If you would like view the original version on Sou’s blog please click here. Alternatively, please continue below the fold:

This is just a short article to show the journalistic tricks that professional disinformers use. It consists of excerpts from an article by David Rose, who is paid to write rubbish for the Mail on Sunday, a UK tabloid of the sensationalist kind. He’d probably claim that he’s just “doing his job”. His job being to create sensationalist headlines and not bother too much about accuracy, but to try to do it in such a way as to stop the paper ending up in court on the wrong end of a lawsuit. Just. (The paper probably doesn’t mind so much getting taken to the Press Complaints Commission. )

Here is what David Rose wrote last weekend:

The Nasa climate scientists who claimed 2014 set a new record for global warmth last night admitted they were only 38 per cent sure this was true.

First of all notice the use of the word “admitted” – as if it was something that the scientists were forced into, whereas in fact they provided all the information in their press briefing. Notice also that David has taken one number and used it out of context.  The 38% number is the probability that 2014 is the hottest year compared to the probability that 2010 and other hot years are the hottest. 2010, the next hottest year, only got a 23% probability by comparison. Here is the table showing out of 100%, what the different probabilities are:

 

You can see how David misused the 38% number. In fact the odds of it being the hottest year on record are the highest of the lot.

What is David’s next atrocity:

In a press release on Friday, Nasa’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) claimed its analysis of world temperatures showed ‘2014 was the warmest year on record’.

The claim made headlines around the world, but yesterday it emerged that GISS’s analysis – based on readings from more than 3,000 measuring stations worldwide – is subject to a margin of error. Nasa admits this means it is far from certain that 2014 set a record at all.

See how David Rose distorts things. How he uses rhetoric, abusing words like “emerged” and “claim” and “admits”. He is also being “economical with the truth” about the “far from certain”. He just made that one up. It may not be “certain”, but it is much more certain than “far from”.  And it is more “certain” that 2014 was the hottest year than that any other year was the hottest year.

If David Rose were arguing that you beat your wife, even though you don’t, he’d probably write it up as:

The so-called scientist claims that he doesn’t beat his wife. He admits that he cannot prove he doesn’t beat his wife. However this journalist can show that it has emerged that his claim is subject to a margin of error.  95% of wife-beaters deny beating their wives.

And I doubt he’d add the confidence limits to the 95% number!

David Rose continues his deception writing:

Yet the Nasa press release failed to mention this, as well as the fact that the alleged ‘record’ amounted to an increase over 2010, the previous ‘warmest year’, of just two-hundredths of a degree – or 0.02C. The margin of error is said by scientists to be approximately 0.1C – several times as much.

That section by David Rose contains the same journalistic tricks of rhetoric, as well as an error of fact. The margin of error of the annual averaged global surface temperature is described in the GISS FAQ as ±0.05°C:

Assuming that the other inaccuracies might about double that estimate yielded the error bars for global annual means drawn in this graph, i.e., for recent years the error bar for global annual means is about ±0.05°C, for years around 1900 it is about ±0.1°C. The error bars are about twice as big for seasonal means and three times as big for monthly means. Error bars for regional means vary wildly depending on the station density in that region. Error estimates related to homogenization or other factors have been assessed by CRU and the Hadley Centre (among others).

If the press release didn’t include any confidence limits, then where did David Rose get his numbers from you may ask? That’s a very good question. It turns out that NOAA and NASA held a press conference, during which they showed some slides and explained the confidence limits, among other things. So David Rose was being very deceitful, wasn’t he. Which isn’t a surprise.

What bit of deception does he swing to next? Well here it is. You be the judge:

As a result, GISS’s director Gavin Schmidt has now admitted Nasa thinks the likelihood that 2014 was the warmest year since 1880 is just 38 per cent. However, when asked by this newspaper whether he regretted that the news release did not mention this, he did not respond. Another analysis, from the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature (BEST) project, drawn from ten times as many measuring stations as GISS, concluded that if 2014 was a record year, it was by an even tinier amount.

More rhetorical tricks using words like “admitted”. More deception by David Rose. When and how and where did David Rose ask Gavin Schmidt the question? I don’t know. It looks as if it was via an accusatory tweet of the type “have you stopped beating your wife”, like this one on January 17th:


Yet Gavin Schmidt had already responded to David Rose’s tweets about “uncertainties” on January 16th:


 
That’s about it. I’ll leave it to you to decide who is the grand deceiver.

I’d not trust David Rose, denier journo, with a single fact.  It is alleged that he is a master of deception. He’d probably try to claim he is just doing his job.

Thanks very much for that article Sou, and by way of conclusion here’s yet another tweet from Gavin Schmidt, this time from January 24th:

Was 2014 Really “The Warmest Year in Modern Record”

Temperature, , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

I don’t usually get involved in debates about “the global warming pause”, but as you will eventually see there is an Arctic connection, so please bear with me. Personally I reckon “global heat” is more relevant than “global surface temperature”, but nevertheless NASA and NOAA issued a “news release” a couple of days ago stating that:

The year 2014 ranks as Earth’s warmest since 1880, according to two separate analyses by NASA and National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) scientists.

The 10 warmest years in the instrumental record, with the exception of 1998, have now occurred since 2000. This trend continues a long-term warming of the planet, according to an analysis of surface temperature measurements by scientists at NASA’s Goddard Institute of Space Studies (GISS) in New York.

In an independent analysis of the raw data, also released Friday, NOAA scientists also found 2014 to be the warmest on record.

The announcement was accompanied by this video:

I figured our old friend David Rose would have something to say about all that in the Mail on Sunday, and I was not disappointed. Yesterday David reported, in bold headlines:

Nasa climate scientists: We said 2014 was the warmest year on record… but we’re only 38% sure we were right

  • Nasa’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies claimed its analysis of world temperatures showed ‘2014 was the warmest year on record’

  • But it emerged that GISS’s analysis is subject to a margin of error

  •  Nasa admits this means it is far from certain that 2014 set a record at all

David Rose includes this NASA video in the online version of his article:

which finishes up showing the Arctic blanketed in red for the period 2010-14. In the body of the article David suggests that:

GISS’s director Gavin Schmidt has now admitted Nasa thinks the likelihood that 2014 was the warmest year since 1880 is just 38 per cent.

but for some strange reason David neglects to mention this NASA/NOAA “press briefing“, which includes the following figure:

2015-01-18-WarmProbs

or this January 16th “Tweet” from Gavin Schmidt:

all of which was discussed on the NASA/NOAA conference call last Friday, a recording of which is available from the NOAA website:

http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/advisories/011415-advisory-2014-global-climatehighlights.html

As you can see and hear, Gavin Schmidt’s “admission” was pretty public, and available for anyone doing their due diligence on this thorny topic to see well before the Mail on Sunday published David Rose’s article.  For still more from Gavin see also the second half of yet another video from NASA, which we’ve hastily made embeddable from YouTube since NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center don’t  seem to have done so themselves as yet:

[Edit – 23/01/2015]

By way of further elucidation of the NASA/NOAA table of probabilities above, here’s a new graphic courtesy of Skeptical Science:

WarmestYearNOAAasatJan2015graphic

The probability of 2014 being the warmest year (due to margin of uncertainty and the small differences between years) is almost ten times that of 1998. And the contrarians were very certain that year was warm!

Does that help make things clearer, for those who evidently have difficulty understanding statistics?

[/Edit]

I also figured that the likes of “Steve Goddard” and Anthony Watts would be jumping on the same bandwagon, so you can imagine my disappointment when I discovered that they have both, unlike Gavin, blocked me from their Twitter feeds! Venturing over to the so called “Real Science” blog instead I discovered that Steve/Tony does at least read Gavin’s Twitter feed, although apparently not NASA/NOAA press briefings:

 

Them:

Implausible Deniability

Gavin is playing his usual game, trying to cover his ass with “uncertainty” that wasn’t mentioned in the NASA press release.

They get the propaganda out there for the White House and major news outlets, then try to generate implausible deniability through back channels like twitter. None of this was mentioned in the NASA press release.

Us:

I take it you weren’t on the call either Tony? Have you by any chance seen this press briefing?

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/briefings/201501.pdf

 

Them:

I’m amazed you have the gall to show up around here, after saying I should be jailed for accurately reporting and predicting Arctic ice.

Pathetic and quite psychotic Jim. And the NASA press release said nothing about uncertainty or satellites.

http://www.nasa.gov/press/2015/january/nasa-determines-2014-warmest-year-in-modern-record/

World class wanker

 

Us:

I’ll take that as a no then.

Since you mention it, how did your 2014 Arctic sea ice predictions work out in the end?

 

Them:

Almost spot on.

Goddard-DMI_new-2014-04-23

 

Us:

“The NASA press release said nothing about uncertainty”

I didn’t say it did. I did however answer Daffy Duck’s question for him. What precisely is “pathetic and quite psychotic” about that?

No answer to that question as yet, so……

That’ll teach me to get involved in debates about “the global warming pause”. I can feel another blog post or two coming on!

What do you make of this recent Arctic sea ice extent chart from your beloved DMI?

DMI-Old-2015-01-19
Them:

Sensor error. Happens quite often. maybe you should go blog about and call for people to be jailed.

 

Us:

For once I agree with you, about the “sensor error” in the most recent 2015 data at least.

Actually I was wondering how that data justifies your “almost spot on” claim for 2014 above. See for example:

https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2014/08/01/my-arctic-forecast-4/

“The minimum this summer will likely be close to the 2006 minimum, which was the highest minimum of the past decade.”

That’s not really how things turned out, is it?

 

Them:

See “Implausible Deniability of 2014 Arctic Sea Ice Predictions” for further “debate” about Arctic sea ice. Meanwhile back to temperature…..

THE DATA ON WEATHER AND CLIMATE (NASA AND NOAA) CAN BE COMPARED TO THE STOCK MARKET ON WALL STREET, MUCH CORRUPTION AND ALTERING. WE ARE NOT GUARANTEED A CERTAIN TEMPERATURE EVERYDAY; ALTHOUGH, THAT IS WHAT THEY WOULD HAVE US THINK, JUST BECAUSE OF SEASONS IN GENERAL.

http://www.nbcnews.com/science/environment/2014-breaks-record-warmest-year-noaa-nasa-experts-say-n287551

 

Us:

What do you make of this bullish channel?
there-is-no-pause

 

Them:

Further to previous correspondence on similar matters, on January 27th 2015 I received the following email from the Personal Assistant to John Wellington, David Rose’s managing editor at the Mail on Sunday:

Dear Jim,

Thank you for your email.

I am afraid the best person to deal with your question is John Wellington who will reply on his return at the beginning of March.

Thank you for your patience.

Kind regards

Poppy Hall

 

Us:

CC: IPSO.co.uk

Dear Poppy,

Thanks for that information, but I am afraid my almost infinite patience in this matter is exhausted.

In John’s absence perhaps I might reiterate a question posed by Bob Ward of The Grantham Institute on Twitter yesterday:

Please would you ask whoever owns the desk on which the buck currently stops for the article entitled “Nasa climate scientists: We said 2014 was the warmest year on record… but we’re only 38% sure we were right” by David Rose to communicate with me as soon as possible. FYI – Here it is:

https://archive.today/SUTA8

As I’m sure you must realise by now, unfortunately it includes some inaccurate and/or misleading statements which as far as I can ascertain have still not been publicly corrected.

Best wishes,

Jim Hunt

 

Post Script:

Bob Ward lodged a formal complaint with the Independent Press Standards Organisation about the Mail on Sunday article. Their conclusion?

The complaint was not upheld.

Remedial Action Required – N/A

Date complaint received: 13/02/2015
Date decision issued: 22/06/2015

Their “reasoning”?

The Committee noted that information about the margin of error had been made available by GISS, but that it was not in dispute that these details had been omitted from the press release. The article had made clear that this specifically was the basis for its criticism of Nasa, and the newspaper was entitled to present its view that this omission represented a failure on the part of the organisation. While the information had been released by Nasa, it had been released to a limited selection of people, in comparison to those who would have had access to the press release, and had not been publicised to the same level as the information in the release. The press briefing images referred to by the complainant were available on Nasa’s website, but were not signposted by the press release. In this context, it was not misleading to report that the information relating to the margin of error had emerged in circumstances where the position was not made clear in the press release. While these details of the margin of error may have been noted in a press briefing two days previously, rather than “yesterday”, as reported, this discrepancy did not represent a significant inaccuracy requiring correction under the terms of the Code.