ESLD: Climate Scientists "Erring on the Side of Least Drama"

by Dana Nuccitelli, Skeptical Science, January 30, 2013

A paper recently published in Global Environmental Change by Brysse et al. (2012) examined a number of past predictions made by climate scientists, and found that that they have tended to be too conservative in their projections of the impacts of climate change.  The authors thus suggest that climate scientists are biased toward overly cautious estimates, erring on the side of less rather than more alarming predictions, which they call "erring on the side of least drama" (ESLD).

In this paper, Brysse et al. examined research evaluating past climate projections, and considered the pressures which might cause climate scientists to ESLD.

Conservative Climate Projections

While we have recently shown that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) temperature projections have been exceptionally accurate, several other projections in the IPCC reports have been far too conservative. 

Sea Level Rise

For example, Rahmstorf (2007) and more recently Rahmstorf et al. (2012) showed that sea level is rising at a rate inconsistent with all but the highest IPCC scenarios (Figure 1).  Rahmstorf et al. (2012) concluded,

"The satellite-based linear trend 1993–2011 is 3.2 ± 0.5 mm yr^-1, which is 60% faster than the best IPCC estimate of 2.0 mm yr^-1 for the same interval"

Figure 1. Sea level measured by satellite altimeter (red with linear trend line; AVISO data from (Centre National d’Etudes Spatiales) and reconstructed from tide gauges (orange, monthly data from Church and White (2011)). Tide gauge data were aligned to give the same mean during 1993–2010 as the altimeter data. The scenarios of the IPCC are again shown in blue (third assessment) and green (fourth assessment); the former have been published starting in the year 1990 and the latter from 2000.

The main reason these sea level rise projections have been too low and that the IPCC almost certainly underestimates future sea level rise is that their models do not include the effects of dynamic ice processes from chunks of ice breaking off into the ocean ("calving") then melting.  The IPCC approach in attempting to account for these processes considers recent contributions to sea level rise from ice sheet melt, then "assume that this contribution will persist unchanged."  This is certainly a conservative approach, and the primary reason their sea level projections have been low.

Arctic Sea Ice Decline

Three years after the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report was drafted, the 2009 Copenhagen Diagnosis examined the latest climate research to effectively update the IPCC report. In addition to confirming the Rahmstorf et al. finding that the IPCC has underestimated sea level rise, the Copenhagen Diagnosis also found that the IPCC has dramatically underestimated the decline in Arctic sea ice extent (Figure 2).

Figure 2. Observed vs. IPCC modeled annual minimum Arctic sea ice extent

In 2012, Arctic sea ice melt shattered the previous record low, to levels unseen in millennia, increasing the margin by which IPCC projections have been too conservative.

CO2 Emissions

A 2009 report by the US National Research Council (NRC), Committee on Strategic Advice on the U.S. Climate Change Science Program found that the IPCC had also underestimated recent CO2 emissions from developing countries. 

"The IPCC projections are based on estimates that CO2 emissions in China increased at an annual rate of about 3–4%  during the past 10 years (IPCC, 2007a; IEA, 2007), but a subsequent province-based inventory concluded that emissions actually increased at a higher rate of about 10–11% (Auffhammer & Carson, 2008)....Emissions from a number of other developed countries were also higher than agreed-to targets."

The Copenhagen Diagnosis similarly found that in addition to underestimating sea level rise, human CO2 emissions have tracked towards the highest IPCC scenarios.

Figure 3. IEA fossil fuel CO2 emissions estimates vs. IPCC SRES emissions scenarios.

Permafrost Melt and Carbon Feedback

The Copenhagen Diagnosis notes that the global warming amplification (feedback) from carbon released as a result of permafrost melting has not been accounted for in any of the IPCC projections. A recent UN Environment Programme report warned that failing to account for this feedback will result in an underestimate of future warming.

Other Climate Impacts

The NRC report notes that according to Déry and Brown (2007), Northern Hemisphere snow cover may also be declining at a faster-than-expected rate, and the Copenhagen Diagnosis states that rainfall has become more intense in already rainy areas, and "recent changes have occurred faster than predicted."

So while the IPCC and the climate science community in general has under-predicted quite a few climate impacts, there are very few examples where they have over-predicted these changes.

"Erring on the Side of Least Drama" (ESLD) to Avoid Alarmism

The IPCC and climate scientists are often accused of "alarmism," but clearly Brysse et al. demonstrate that these accusations are wholly unfounded and misplaced.

"Our analysis of the available studies suggests that if a bias is operative in the work of climate scientists, it is in the direction of under-predicting, rather than over-predicting, the rate and extent of anthropogenic climate change."

In fact, Brysse et al. suggest that these frequent accusations of "alarmism" and other climate contrarian attacks on climate scientists may be one reason why climate scientists have under-predicted climate change or erred on the side of least drama.

"The frequent attacks on Stephen Schneider—as well as attacks on other climate scientists such as Benjamin Santer and Michael Mann—suggests that one possible reason why scientists may have underestimated the threat of anthropogenic warming is the fear that if they don’t, they will be accused by contrarians (as was Schneider) of being alarmist fear-mongers. That is to say, pressure from skeptics and contrarians and the risk of being accused of alarmism may have caused scientists to understate their results."

However, Brysse et al. note that from a scientific and statistical standpoint, under-predicting an effect by 10% is no less wrong than over-predicting an effect by 10%.  Therefore, ESLD can introduce a systematic bias that leads to a reduction in the accuracy of climate projections. 

The Ozone Example

Between 2008 and 2011, Brysse et al. conducted a series of interviews with numerous scientists studying and assessing ozone depletion. In February 1992, NASA scientists studying the Arctic atmosphere issued a press release warning that a major Arctic ozone hole, like the one over Antarctica, could develop that spring. While the science behind the prediction was correct, unexpected factors intervened, and Arctic ozone depletion in 1992 was not as severe as the scientists anticipated.

"In the aftermath of the unrealized 1992 Arctic ozone hole prediction, NASA scientists were severely criticized in the conservative press for crying wolf, causing unnecessary panic, and acting according to emotional imperatives or an environmental agenda instead of according to the dictates of scientific objectivity."

Subsequent to the barrage of criticism over this event, NASA has become more cautious in issuing press releases.  Many scientists who researched ozone depletion have now become involved in the IPCC reports. In an interview in 2009, ozone researcher Jonathan Shanklin suggested that scientific assessments operate according to the "crying wolf principle: if you cry wolf too often, then nobody believes you anymore, and the sky does fall in," and also suggested that in the case of recent IPCC predictions of future climate change, scientists’ "best guess for many of these [scenarios] were actually worse than those in the report." 

In other words, Shanklin suggests that the IPCC under-predicts climate impacts in order to avoid losing credibility due to ...accusations of "alarmism."  Other scientists interviewed by Brysse who were involved in ozone research and the IPCC reports shared similar opinions.

Other Causes of ESLD

In addition to fear of being labeled as "alarmist" Brysse et al. discusses other possible causes of ESLD.  For example, scientists tend to invoke the "principle of least astonishment," whereby they typically choose the simplest of two possible hypotheses. However, the rate that climate impacts like Arctic sea loss and sea level rise are occurring and will occur is rather astonishing. Similarly, scientific conservatism introduces "an inherent bias in favor of existing knowledge and presumptions, and the avoidance of conclusions that seem excessively dramatic."

Brysse et al. also believe "that the basic, core values of scientific rationality contribute to an unintended bias against dramatic outcomes...scientists are skeptical of all new claims, and ceteris paribus, the more dramatic the claim, the more skeptical they are likely to be."  Dramatic claims open scientists to criticisms not just from climate contrarians, but to their own peers as well.

The Dangers of ESLD

To sum up, climate scientists have tended to systematically under-predict many impacts resulting from climate change. Brysse et al. suggest they do so in "erring on the side of least drama" (ESLD):

• in order to avoid accusations of "alarmism" from climate contrarians;

• because scientists are skeptical by nature whereas climate impacts are dramatic;

• and because dramatic claims open scientists to criticism from their peers.

However, the conservative bias imposed by ESLD produces a dangerous result.

"If climate scientists and assessors are erring on the side of least drama in their predictions, then they are not preparing policymakers and the public for the worst, because they are underpredicting what the worst outcomes might be."

We will give the final word to Brysse et al.:

"Our hypothesis of ESLD is not meant as a criticism of scientists. The culture of science has in most respects served humanity very well. Rather, ESLD provides a context for interpreting scientists’ assessments of risk-laden situations, a challenge faced by the public and policy-makers. In attempting to avoid drama, the scientific community may be biasing its own work—a bias that needs to be appreciated because it could prevent the full recognition, articulation, and acknowledgment of dramatic natural phenomena that may, in fact, be occurring. After all, some phenomena in nature are dramatic. If the drama arises primarily from social, political, or economic impacts, then it is crucial that the associated risk be understood fully, and not discounted."

http://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-scientists-esld.html 

Witch hunt of Charles Monnett, polar bear researcher, still ongoing?

Is polar bear scientist Monnett still under investigation?

Photo by Loren Holmes

by Jill Burke, Alaska Dispatch, 

January 29, 2013

Polar bear scientist Charles Monnett's long-running entanglement with bureaucratic investigations into the quality and ethics of his work may not be over, despite a finding by his government employer in September that he could return to work. At the time, Monnett was delivered the equivalent of a slap on the hand -- a written reprimand for sharing work emails with environmentalists.

He was cleared of more damning allegations that his science was bad, his motives questionable. Yet according to attorney Jeff Ruch, who has represented Monnett throughout the investigation, the Office of the Inspector General has confirmed the case remains open. Agents with the Inspector General's office conducted the inquiry into Monnett's work and last fall returned their analysis to the Bureau of Ocean and Energy Management (BOEM), Monnett's employer. The bureau determined there could be evidence of criminal wrongdoing and scientific misconduct, but left it to BOEM to decide how to interpret the Inspector General's findings and what, if anything, to do about it.

Intense scrutiny of Monnett at the hands of government investigators quickly became an ongoing saga with political implications. When the investigation began, Monnett worked for the Minerals Management Service, an agency that not only conducted research into marine mammals, but which also permitted oil and gas exploration in Arctic waters. Tensions were growing among scientists who felt their observations were being swept under the rug to ease the permitting process.

Polar bears: powerful symbol

Meanwhile, the prospect of drowning polar bears became a powerful symbol. Monnett and a co-author, Dr. Jeffrey Gleason, made brief reference to drowned bears in a 2006 journal article. During a 2004 overflight to survey bowhead whales in Alaska's arctic. Monnett and his colleagues witnessed what they believed were four dead bears floating in the Arctic Ocean. It was the first published documentation of dead bears at sea, and Monnett and Dr. Jeffrey Gleason surmised that the number of dead bears would increase as sea ice melted. At some point during the investigation, Monnett's methods for documenting the deaths and putting them into context became a target of the inquiry. Investigators, who were vague during much of the process, would only say scientific misconduct, and perhaps miscalculations, were one aspect of concern regarding the scientist's work.

The prospect of drowning polar bears was a powerful symbol environmentalists latched onto to make their case that Arctic development should be thwarted.

Climate change eventually was perceived as a big enough threat to warrant listing polar bears as a federally protected species under the Endangered Species Act. A power struggle was underway over whether Arctic species were truly imperiled, and whether the search for oil offshore might imperil them further. Bad science on any side had the potential to be a political nightmare.

Ruch, who serves as executive director for Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility, said he only learned in late December that the investigation into Monnett remains open. Thinking the matter closed, he'd gone on to file a whistleblower complaint with the Office of Special Counsel, claiming that the reprimand against Monnett violated whistleblower protections. Ruch believes the emails Monnett revealed outside the workplace contained evidence of government wrongdoing, and that it is improper for Monnett to be disciplined for bringing wrongdoing into the open. The complaint is pending.

Closed issue?

Whatever bureaucratic wrangling is going on behind the scenes, BOEM maintains the matter remains a closed issue. “BOEM considers the matter of these allegations resolved,” BOEM spokesperson Maureen Clark said via email Tuesday.

In a statement from Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility released Tuesday about the ongoing situation, Ruch said the Inspector General didn't reveal much about what's going on, “except to say that it is awaiting BOEM’s response to unspecified new recommendations.”

According to a source close to the investigation, who asked to remain anonymous because he or she is not authorized to speak about the matter, said the Inspector General's office did request BOEM take a second look at the report. A scientific integrity panel should have conducted BOEM's review of the report, which didn't happen, and BOEM has until early February to follow that protocol, the source said.

It's an ironic twist, because one of the gripes Ruch has had from the beginning is that agents with the Inspector General's office conducted their investigation on their own, without input from a scientific-integrity panel. Early in the president's first term in office, the Obama administration had pledged to free scientists from the ills of political pressure and personal agendas, and to implement a scientific integrity review process that would insulate scientists and their work from backlash and manipulation. Ruch failed to convince the government to allow such a panel to investigate the initial allegations lodged against his client. And yet now, it is just such a panel in whose hands the final verdict on the matter may teeter.

Ruch suspects it was BOEM that first asked the Inspector General to go after Monnett, angered over a string of information leaks on politically sensitive topics during a time when there was a push for oil-and-gas lease sales. Recently, through a Freedom of Information Act request, he's learned that the Inspector General tried but failed to convince the Justice Department to bring criminal charges against Monnett on matters ranging from false statements related to the 2006 drowned polar bear article, to conflict of interest regarding a research contract, to the wrongful dissemination of government emails.

“This new information underlines how irresponsible and misguided the Inspector General has been in its attempt to ‘get’ a target while trampling over obvious truths,” Ruch said in Tuesday's prepared release.

'Witch hunt'

Because Monnett never lost pay and has been allowed to return to work, his avenues for remedy are limited, Ruch said. But Ruch said his client hopes a precedent will keep other scientists from enduring the experience, something Ruch likens to a “witch hunt.”

He also wants a more defined process for evaluating scientific integrity matters, as well as legal status for scientific work and the scientists that create it so that their findings cannot be ignored. He also seeks to return a job where he can resume scientific work free from interference.

Contact Jill Burke at jill(at)alaskadispatch.com

http://www.alaskadispatch.com/article/polar-bear-scientist-monnett-still-under-investigation

Confirmation Of Climate Hawk Kerry As Secretary Of State May Doom Dirty Keystone XL Pipeline

by Joe Romm, Climate Progress, January 29, 2013 

The Senate confirmed John Kerry as a Secretary of State by a vote of 94 to 3. I believe this is a turning point in the fight to stop the Keystone XL pipeline. Once again, I do not think that a man who had dedicated his Senate career to fighting catastrophic climate change would start his term as Secretary approving the expansion of one of the dirtiest sources of fossil fuels in the world.

Keystone is a gateway to a huge pool of carbon-intensive fuel most of which must be left in the ground — along with most of the world’s coal and unconventional oil and gas – if humanity is to avoid multiple devastating impacts that may be beyond adaptation.

How precisely could Kerry lobby other countries to join an international climate treaty — perhaps his primary goal as Secretary — after enabling the accelerated exploitation of the tar sands? Yes, you can say that the United States already has no standing to cajole other countries into climate commitments when we’ve expanded oil and gas drilling as well as coal exports. But none of those were Kerry’s decision, whereas Keystone is.

Kerry starts as Secretary of State with a clean slate. But approving Keystone would be like dipping that slate into the dirtiest, stickiest tar imaginable — it could never be cleaned again. Certainly the three Senators from Big Oil who voted against him – Ted Cruz (R-TX), John Cornyn (R-TX), and James Inhofe (R-OK) — must think he isn’t going to be the friend to Texas Tea.

Here is what Kerry said on the subject of climate change in his confirmation hearing:

The solution to climate change is energy policy. And, the opportunities of energy policy so vastly outweigh the downsides that you’re expressing concerns about … You want to do business and do it well in America, you have to get into the energy race … I would respectfully say to you that climate change is not something to be feared in response to—the steps to respond to—it’s to be feared if we don’t … I will be a passionate advocate on this not based on ideology but based on facts and science, and I hope to sit with all of you and convince you that this $6 trillion market is worth millions of American jobs and we better go after it.

I simply don’t think this climate hawk will recommend that Keystone be approved.

Related Posts:

• New Analysis Shows Simple Math: Keystone XL Pipeline = Tar Sands Expansion = Accelerated Climate Change
• James Hansen slams Keystone: “Exploitation of tar sands would make it implausible to stabilize climate and avoid disastrous global climate impacts.”

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2013/01/29/1513521/confirmation-of-climate-hawk-kerry-as-secretary-of-state-death-blow-dirty-keystone-xl-pipeline/

Stephen Colbert nails it on global warming

Starts at minute 4:30:

http://www.colbertnation.com/full-episodes/mon-january-28-2013-michael-shellenberger

In depth article on coral reefs at Skeptical Science

Figure 6. Example of a French Polynesian reef devastated by a COTS outbreak. A, healthy reef with cover in excess of 40%; B, algae have colonized the reef after attack by COTS; C, weakened or dead coral are swept away by a cyclone leaving less than 5% living coral cover. From Kayal (2012). 

For article go to this link:  http://www.skepticalscience.com/Australias-Great-Barrier-Reef-Last-Chance-to-See.html

"Limiting global warming to 2 °C is unlikely to save most coral reefs," by K. Frieler et al., Nature Climate Change, 3 (2013); doi: doi:10.1038/nclimate1674

Nature Climate Change, 3 (2013) 165-170; doi: doi:10.1038/nclimate1674

Limiting global warming to 2 °C is unlikely to save most coral reefs

• K. Frieler,
• M. Meinshausen,
• A. Golly,
• M. Mengel,
• K. Lebek,
• S. D. Donner and
•  O. Hoegh-Guldberg

Abstract

Mass coral bleaching events have become a widespread phenomenon causing serious concerns with regard to the survival of corals. Triggered by high ocean temperatures, bleaching events are projected to increase in frequency and intensity. Here, we provide a comprehensive global study of coral bleaching in terms of global mean temperature change, based on an extended set of emissions scenarios and models. We show that preserving >10% of coral reefs worldwide would require limiting warming to below 1.5 °C (atmosphere–ocean general circulation models (AOGCMs) range: 1.3–1.8 °C) relative to pre-industrial levels. Even under optimistic assumptions regarding corals’ thermal adaptation, one-third (9–60%, 68% uncertainty range) of the world’s coral reefs are projected to be subject to long-term degradation under the most optimistic new IPCC emissions scenario, RCP3-PD. Under RCP4.5 this fraction increases to two-thirds (30–88%, 68% uncertainty range). Possible effects of ocean acidification reducing thermal tolerance are assessed within a sensitivity experiment.

At a glance

• Figures

left

1. 

2. 

3. 

right

Link: http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v3/n2/full/nclimate1674.html

NRDC: New video explains the climate threat from the Keystone XL tar sands pipeline

by Danielle Droitsch, Switchboard, NRDC, January 28, 2013

A new video [see below] released by NRDC and 350.org explains how the Keystone XL tar sands pipeline is a lynchpin enabling the climate intensive tar sands industry to grow unimpeded.  The video also discusses cutting edge research from Oil Change International showing how tar sands oil causes more carbon pollution than originally estimated.  Recently, four energy experts and climate scientists from Canada and the U.S. traveled to Washington, DC, with an urgent message:  if we are to truly respond to climate change which is causing extreme life-threatening weather, we must reject the Keystone XL tar sands pipeline.  Watch the video and join tens of thousands of others on February 17 for the Forward on Climate rally in Washington, DC.  Join us and send a message to the Obama administration to move forward on climate action. President Obama promised that “we will respond to the threat of climate change.”  As my colleague Dan Lashof said, delivering on that promise means setting carbon pollution standards for existing power plants and rejecting the Keystone XL tar sands pipeline. 

The video co-released by the NRDC and 350.org today brings the message from these four experts.

It features Dr. Danny Harvey, professor at the University of Toronto who noted that “The human race is in big trouble. There is overwhelming scientific evidence that climate change is real. If Keystone is approved, we’re locking in several more decades of fossil fuels and higher levels of carbon dioxide and global warming.”

Dr. John Abraham, an associate professor at the University of St. Thomas said the exploitation of tar sands will significantly worsen the climate. “Climate change is the story related to Keystone. The drought and heat wave in Texas cost Texans $5.2 billion. Hurricane Sandy cost us $70 billion. Some people say it’s too expensive to develop clean energy. I say it’s too expensive not to. We can choose to expand clean energy or make the crazy choice to extract and use the dirtiest of the dirty.”

Lorne Stockman, Research Director for Oil Change International announced new research that shows that the emissions from tar sands oil are worse than originally believed.  This is because the climate emissions from a byproduct of tar sands, petroleum coke which is made in the refinery process and is used in coal-fired power plants, have not been previously considered. 

Nathan Lemphers, a Senior Policy Analyst with the Pembina Institute talks about how Keystone XL is a critical ingredient to significant expansion of tar sands.   He dispels the myth being promoted by the tar sands oil industry that tar sands development is inevitable with our without Keystone XL. 

These experts also counter the notion that the climate impacts of the Keystone XL pipeline are small compared to total U.S. global greenhouse gas emissions.  In short, approving Keystone XL would open the gateway to dramatic new development of tar sands oil and far more harm to our climate.  Continuing to enable the expansion of tar sands in the face of catastrophic climate change is precisely a step in the wrong direction. 

As Dr. Harvey best said, “There is no better time to say no to further expansion [of tar sands], to say no to business as usual, and to begin the process of turning things around.  If we don’t say no now, when will we say no?”

http://switchboard.nrdc.org/blogs/ddroitsch/new_video_explains_the_climate.html

New Arctic Death Spiral Feedback: Melt Ponds Cause Sea Ice To Melt More Rapidly

Graphic depiction of the amount of sunlight above and underneath the Arctic sea ice. The growing coverage of the ice by darker meltponds increases the share of sunlight that passes through the sea ice. That means the space underneath the ice becomes brighter and warmer. Furthermore less sunlight is reflected back into the atmosphere. Graphic: Alfred Wegener

Alfred Wegener Institute news release, January 27, 2013

The Arctic sea ice has not only declined over the past decade but has also become distinctly thinner and younger. Researchers are now observing mainly thin, first-year ice floes which are extensively covered with melt ponds in the summer months where once metre-thick, multi-year ice used to float. 

Sea ice physicists at the Alfred Wegener Institute, Helmholtz Centre for Polar and Marine Research (AWI), have now measured the light transmission through the Arctic sea ice for the first time on a large scale, enabling them to quantify consequences of this change. They come to the conclusion that in places where melt water collects on the ice, far more sunlight and therefore energy is able to penetrate the ice than is the case for white ice without ponds. The consequence is that the ice is absorbing more solar heat, is melting faster, and more light is available for the ecosystems in and below the ice. The researchers have now published these new findings in the scientific journal Geophysical Research Letters.

Melt ponds count among the favourite motifs for ice and landscape photographers in the Arctic. They are captured glistening in a seductive Caribbean sea blue or dark as a stormy sea on the ice floe. “Their colour depends entirely on how thick the remaining ice below the melt pond is and the extent to which the dark ocean beneath can be seen through this ice. Melt ponds on thicker ice tend to be turquoise and those on thin ice dark blue to black”, explains Dr. Marcel Nicolaus, sea ice physicist and melt pond expert at the Alfred Wegener Institute.

In recent years he and his team have observed a strikingly large number of melt ponds during summer expeditions to the central Arctic. Virtually half of the one-year ice was covered with melt ponds. Scientists attribute this observation to climate change. 

“The ice cover of the Arctic Ocean has been undergoing fundamental change for some years. Thick, multi-year ice is virtually nowhere to be found any more. Instead, more than 50% of the ice cover now consists of thin one-year ice on which the melt water is particularly widespread. The decisive aspect here is the smoother surface of this young ice, permitting the melt water to spread over large areas and form a network of many individual melt ponds,” explains Marcel Nicolaus. 

By contrast, the older ice has a rougher surface which has been formed over the years by the constant motion of the floe and innumerable collisions. Far fewer and smaller ponds formed on this uneven surface which were, however, considerably deeper than the flat ponds on the younger ice.

The growing number of “windows to the ocean,, as melt ponds are also referred to, gave rise to a fundamental research question for Marcel Nicolaus: to what extent do the melt ponds and the thinning ice alter the amount of light beneath the sea ice? After all, the light in the sea – as on the land – constitutes the main energy source for photosynthesis. Without sunlight neither algae nor plants grow. Marcel Nicolaus: “We knew that an ice floe with a thick and fresh layer of snow reflects between 85 and 90 per cent of sunlight and permits only little light through to the ocean. In contrast, we could assume that in summer, when the snow on the ice has melted and the sea ice is covered with melt ponds, considerably more light penetrates through the ice.”

To find out the extent to which Arctic sea ice permits the penetration of the sun’s rays and how large the influence of the melt ponds is on this permeability, the AWI sea ice physicists equipped a remotely operated underwater vehicle (ROV “Alfred”) with radiation sensors and cameras. In the summer of 2011 during an Arctic expedition of the research ice breaker POLARSTERN, they sent this robot to several stations directly under the ice. During its underwater deployments, the device recorded how much solar energy penetrated the ice at a total of 6000 individual points all with different ice properties!

A unique data set was obtained in this way, the results of which are of great interest. Marcel Nicolaus explains: “The young thin ice with the many melt ponds does not just permit three times as much light to pass through than older ice. It also absorbs 50% more solar radiation. This conversely means that this thin ice covered by melt ponds reflects considerably fewer sun rays than the thick ice. Its reflection rate is just 37%. The young ice also absorbs more solar energy, which causes more melt. The ice melts from inside out to a certain extent,” says Marcel Nicolaus.

What might happen in the future considering these new findings? Marcel Nicolaus: “We assume that in future climate change will permit more sunlight to reach the Arctic Ocean – and particularly also that part of the ocean which is still covered by sea ice in summer. The reason: the greater the share of one-year ice in the sea ice cover, the more melt ponds will form and the larger they will be. This will also lead to a decreasing surface albedo (reflectivity)  and transmission into the ice and ocean will increase. The sea ice will become more porous, more sunlight will penetrate the ice floes, and more heat will be absorbed by the ice. This is a development which will further accelerate the melting of the entire sea ice area.” 

However, at the same time the organisms in and beneath the ice will have more light available to them in future. Whether and how they will cope with the new brightness is currently being investigated in cooperation with biologists.

Photo, taken by the ROV (Remotely Operated Vehicle) during its dive through deformed sea ice. The marker bars are one meter long. In the background one can see that more sunlight passes the sea ice, because the ice is covered by meltponds. The numbers and symbols, which are faded in, tell the direction and position of the ROV. They are needed by the pilot to steer the underwater roboter. Photo: Alfred Wegener

The original publication is entitled:

M. Nicolaus, C. Katlein, J. Maslanik, S. Hendricks. Changes in Arctic sea ice result in increasing light transmittance and absorption, Geophysical Research Letters, Vol. 39, No. 24, December 2012. Article first published online: 29 Dec 2012; DOI: 10.1029/2012GL053738 (Link: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2012GL053738/abstract)

– Alfred Wegener Institute news release

Related Posts:

• Death Spiral Watch: Experts Warn “Near Ice-Free Arctic In Summer” In A Decade If Volume Trends Continue
• NOAA: Climate Change Driving Arctic Into A ‘New State’ With Rapid Ice Loss And Record Permafrost Warming

Arctic sea ice is melting much, much faster than even the best climate models had projected (actual observations in red). The reason is most likely unmodeled amplifying feedbacks. The image (from Climate Crocks via Arctic Sea Ice Blog) comes from a 2007 GRL research paper by Stroeve et al.

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2013/01/27/1501201/arctic-death-spiral-feedback-melt-ponds-sea-ice/

Jennifer Francis Unchained, Breckenridge, January 2013

Nice that she uses Peter Sinclair's montage for about the first 3 minutes. Nothing you don't already know for the first 20 minutes, but she has done a really good job of using good graphics and explanations for a wider audience, including using a deck of cards.

But you might want to start at minute 20 because then she goes into the amount of warming over the Arctic with some good graphics showing how the heat varies by season and altitude -- very significant warming in the winter and at altitude in the winter.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=xugAC7XGosM

Portland, ME: Huge crowd turns out to denounce possible transport of tar sands in region to Casco Bay

Foes and backers dispute whether there are plans to transport the substance to Casco Bay

by Beth Quimby (bquimby@mainetoday.com) and Edward D. Murphy (emurphy@mainetoday.com), Staff Writers, The Maine Sunday Telegram, January 27, 2013

This story was updated at 10:50 a.m. 1/27 to correct where the tar sands oil is extracted from.

People march down Commercial Street in Portland on Saturday to protest what they say is an emerging proposal to send tar sands oil from Canada through a pipeline to Portland harbor. Officials with the Portland Pipeline Corp., which owns the pipeline, says there is no existing proposal to send tar sands oil through the pipeline.

Photos by Gregory Rec/Staff Photographer

Demonstrators head to the Maine State Pier on Saturday to voice their opposition to piping tar sands oil through the region. Officials with the Portland Pipe Line Corp. say there is no existing plan to transport tar sands oil through the Portland-to-Montreal Pipe Line.

PORTLAND – More than 1,400 people marched from Monument Square to the Maine State Pier to protest the possible use of the Portland-to-Montreal oil pipeline to transport tar sands crude oil to Casco Bay.

Billed by organizers as the largest rally against tar sands oil in the Northeast, the protest featured more than a dozen speakers, including U.S. Rep. Chellie Pingree, D-1st District, and Portland Mayor Michael Brennan.

"I'm going to ask the Obama administration to do a full environmental review of any attempts to pump tar sands through that pipeline," said Pingree.

Portland police estimated the crowd at between 1,400 and 1,500 people. Most other protests against either the use of tar sands crude oil or the Keystone XL pipeline -- proposed to transport the oil from Canada to U.S. refineries on the Gulf Coast -- have been sporadic and smaller than the one in Portland on Saturday.

Protesters, many of whom arrived in Portland on chartered buses, didn't seem to mind the biting cold.

Carrying a sign that read "Don't stick your head in the sands," John Ersek of Gorham said he showed up at the urging of his daughter, Olivia.

"The protest was my daughter's idea. I came up with the sign," he said.

Portland Water District Trustee Brad Cleaves of Portland was also on hand to protest piping tar sands crude through the region.

"It will definitely jeopardize our water supply," said Cleaves.

The rally was the latest move by tar sands opponents to spread their message that oil companies are planning to move tar sands oil through the 236-mile, 62-year-old pipeline, which runs from Vermont to New Hampshire and through the Sebago Lake watershed to South Portland.

The producers of tar sands oil and other proponents, including the pipeline's owner, the Portland Pipe Line Corp., continue to insist that there is no plan to use the pipeline for tar sands oil. They also say opponents exaggerate the environmental risks of tar sands oil.

The New England Petroleum Council in Boston issued a statement last week calling into question protesters' concerns about the safety of tar sands oil. Enbridge, the company that operates the Canadian pipeline from Ontario to Montreal, said Friday it had no plans for the Montreal-to-Maine pipeline.

Tar sands oil -- also known as diluted bitumen -- is extracted from sandy soils in Alberta. A study financed by the Canadian government released earlier this month found development of the oil sands had increased the amount of cancer-causing compounds in surrounding lakes.

Opponents of the shipment of tar sands oil to the U.S. say it increases the country's dependence on oil and will add to emissions that contribute to global warming.

They also say tar sands oil is extracted using methods similar to coal strip mining, which will damage the northern Canadian forests where the oil is drawn, and transporting and refining it poses risks that are much greater than those involved in drilling, shipping and refining conventional crude oil.

The Natural Resources Defense Council late last year issued a detailed report on tar sands oil, charging that it is highly corrosive and acidic and can weaken the pipelines that carry it, increasing the risk of spills. They also say the pipelines that carry the oil must operate at higher temperatures and pressures, two factors that they said could make a leak involving tar sands crude more devastating than a leak involving regular crude oil.

Extracting, transporting and refining tar sands crude also requires much more water and energy than conventional crude, the NRDC said.

Proponents, however, say tar sands oil is no more corrosive or dangerous than conventional crude. They also note that Canada has adopted stricter air and water quality standards to mitigate the impact of extracting and transporting tar sands crude oil.

Exploiting a new source of oil, they add, creates jobs, protects those jobs that are dependent on the use of oil and also lessens U.S. dependence on oil from the Mideast.

"The oil sands production process is not the 'vast and destructive' industrial operation" that opponents describe, John Quinn, executive director of the New England Petroleum Council, said Jan. 21 in an Another View editorial in the Portland Press Herald.

He said tar sands oil extraction has affected less than 0.2 percent of Alberta's forests, and a tract of the forest about the size of South Carolina is under federal protection and is off-limits to extraction efforts.

Earlier this month, Casco voters approved a resolution against moving tar sands oil through the pipeline, which runs through their town. Burlington, Vt., has passed a similar measure.

The Windham Town Council will hold a special meeting at 7 p.m. Tuesday at the town offices to hear Environment Maine's request for an anti-tar sands resolution.

Last week, the Portland City Council referred a measure that would have banned the use of tar sands oil products back to its Transportation, Sustainability and Energy Committee for more review.

Staff Writer Edward Murphy can be contacted at 791-6465 or at:

emurphy@pressherald.com

Staff Writer Beth Quimby can be contacted at 791-6363 or at:

bquimby@pressherald.com

http://www.pressherald.com/news/Tars-sands-oil-opponents-march-in-Portland.html?fb_action_ids=10200593351140788