http://www.skepticalscience.com/DMI-data-on-Arctic-temperatures-Intermediate.html
regarding the article:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/08/05/dmi-polar-data-shows-cooler-arctic-temperature-since-1958/
I can see that skepticalscience appears satisfied with the DMI data when you use the full year data – so what causes the summer temperature mismatch north of 80N between GISS data and DMI data?
Let’s refresh our memories:
A few days after the WUWT article, the DMI “melt season” was over and the final version of updated DMI 80-90N DMI summer (melt season) temperatures appears as follows:
Fig 1.
– Yes, the DMI melt season temperatures 80-90N in 2010 hit an all time low temperature record of just near +0,34 Celsius thus once again confirming the cold trend that started around 1991.
DMI trend summer 1991-2009: COOLING
GISS 80-90N temperatures june and july mostly projected up to 1200 km.
Fig 2
GISS june, july trend 1991-2009: WARMING
This does not make the GISS temperature projection method look good.
I can’t see how the writing at Skepticalscience.com should change that. I also showed other examples of problems with the GISS temperatures projected 1200 km over the ocean not really addressed in the skepticalscience article.
Normally when examining ice extent, believers of the global warming hypothesis mostly focus on the summer melt period. But now when a data source (the best data source for 80N-90N) shows temperatures for the melt period to be cooling of the area 80-90N, then we should look at the whole year. OK, lets then focus on the FULL year ice extent for the FULL globe based on Cryosphere data:
Fig 3
The 2010 column (an early prognosis) so far comes in number five since year 2000. That is, the fifth smallest global sea ice extent since year 2000.
So to begin with, the anomalies of global sea ice extent for 2008-10 appears to be just 0,3-5 mio sq km under normal.
However, Cryosphere in January 2007 made a Correction/reduction in Arctic sea ice data:
Fig 4
Here we see that the whole level of Arctic sea ice after year 2000 has been corrected down by Cryosphere with around 0,3 – 1,0 mio sq km. So this correction itself is perhaps large enough to fully account for the “missing” sea ice extent 2008-10. The strong La Nina cooling 1999-2001 is clearly reflected in the CT 2006 data, but not easy seen in the CT 2010 data.
So, without the Cryosphere correction done in January 2007, the sea ice anomalies 2008-2010 would have been zero or positive.
In my archives, I found this compare of arctic summer ice extents showing, that CT´s Arctic summer ice decline is over 1 mio sq km larger in 2007 than other data sources:
(Im not sure who collected these data.)
This indicates that the essential Cryosphere Jan 2007 correction may be an outlier.
Similar to the uncorrected CT data are the gridded NSIDC data presented by Jeff Id:
Fig 6
Again, the years 2008-2010 is not really supporting any downward trend, although the entire period 1978-2009 shows decline using a banal flat trend.
For both CT data and Jeff Id´s NSIDC data presentation we see that its in fact it is mostly the years 2005, 2006 and 2007 that shows a large dip in global sea ice extent. Take away those years, and where is the decadal declining trend?
When Jeff Id Zooms in on the years after 1995, it becomes clear, that the 3 years (2005-7) is responsible for downward trends if we use the banal flat trend argumentation for global ice extent:
Fig 7
Link to Jeff Id´s article:
http://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2009/12/09/sea-ice-copenhagen-update/
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Frank: You need an editor.
extend -> extent
Im -> I’m
jan -> Jan
banal -> trivial
You need to lay out the main points of the article you’re addressing. Also, the minimum ice extent is being used by the CAGW crowd because they believe a tipping point is possible such that, once the ice disappears in the arctic, it will not return. While I like the yearly average anomaly you’re presenting, I suspect you aren’t really addressing their issue (not that I believe they’re correct). Tactics like this tend to re-enforce people in their false beliefs.
Reply: I was setting about fixing the big one already. ~ctm
Given the lack of weather stations in the area, the estimating of Arctic temperatures over wide areas is always going to be somewhat difficult.
However, who would you rather believe? The guys who extrapolate up to 1,200 km, and who are known to have a political agenda? Or the guys who are closer on the ground, and who show every sign of doing their pragmatic level best?
All the best.
What I would like to know is the precise average temperature acording to GISS in june and july for comparison with the DMI data.
While the original article pointed out some flaws in the GISS data which is reasonable considering the limitation of the stations to measure the temperature of the Arctic. Both the RSS and UAH satellite data indicates that the Arctic is warming in all summer months.
As I trust the satellite data when compared to the limited station coverage I am going to agree that the Arctic is warming during the summer.
Trusting the most reliable data available is the best scientific method. If the satellite and station data disagree, I will go with the satellite data.
Have no fear though. The warmist crowd is equally loath to accept the satellite data that shows the Antarctic is in a cooling trend. There is a long and ongoing debate on my site from my analysis that the poles are trending in opposite directions. The same satellite analysis shows warming the arctic while the antarctic is cooling.
So while the DMI analysis doesn’t impress me very much because it disagrees with the satellite data, the people at SkS don’t accept that satellite data that shows cooling at the other pole. That the cooling also correlates to the extent increasing is also dismissed by one of their articles.
So in the end there is conflicting data and most people are unwilling to accept it all as legitimate.
Thanks,
John Kehr
JDN says:
October 18, 2010 at 8:33 pm
Frank is German. His English is good. Stop nit picking.
DaveE.
Uh-oh. You take the non-corrected CT Northern Sea Ice Anomaly and lay it over the CT Southern Sea Ice Anomaly and suddenly there is no global sea ice downward drift.
hmmmm…..Pineapple UpsideDown Cake
You don’t suppose the global sea ice extent/area is rising, and the oceans are falling…Nah.
DMI has an Arctic page but why no Antarctic page ?
Why do you continue to even acknowledge skepticalscience.com? It is not skeptical science – it is propaganda for CAGW. It is a garbage website that even a five year old could refute. Pure crap.
Confusion.. Is the claim about the GISS data (which is an already known subject), or if there was a decline in the ice or not – in the Arctic. Just be careful, as what some will remove from the Arctic as a possible decline over a long period, will also have to be remove from a potential rise in Antarctica – as both are using the same methodology to achieve those figures.
Also, to limit the ice situation solely on the 80/above is like trying to mask the reality on the what is really happening with the ice up north – it would remove most of Greenland + all of Canada and Russia out of the equation and that becomes really absurb to pull every one out just to demonstrate a not so real issue about the GISS data.
There will always be ice in the Arctic during winter. The long nighttime radiation from water with an emissivity of 0.993 to sky at 4°K blackbody temperature will always produce ice. Further, the albedos of ice and open ocean overlap at the high zenith angles found in Arctic summer. Ice acts as an insulator during part of the year under normal conditions, conserving some heat while reflecting some.
DMI is the Danish met office and since greenland is part of Denmark they deal with the arctic and not the antarctic.
I’ve been locked out of that other site.
It happened shortly after I provided contradictory, peer-reviewed papers that contradicted things the site owner was making claims about.
Also, for consideration:
Jan-Dec 2007 – Brightness adjustment to RSS data
http://nsidc.org/data/docs/daac/nsidc0080_ssmi_nrt_tbs.gd.html
2007 – AMSR-E Data was rev’d to version 2
http://nsidc.org/data/amsre/data_versions/version2.html#algorithms
While it means nothing, as a metrology guy, I would rather not have my gauges and data “tweaked” and have a product event at the same time.
This has collected an interesting series of videos showing the seventees enormous snowstorms:
http://americansjourney.blogspot.com/2010/10/panic-upon-cue-coming-ice-age-but-i.html
What’s so bad for diminishing ice for a while longer when we know that the next ice age is around the corner?
rbateman says:
October 18, 2010 at 9:07 pm
Uh-oh. You take the non-corrected CT Northern Sea Ice Anomaly and lay it over the CT Southern Sea Ice Anomaly and suddenly there is no global sea ice downward drift.
hmmmm…..Pineapple UpsideDown Cake
You don’t suppose the global sea ice extent/area is rising, and the oceans are falling…Nah.
………………………………………………………………………………….
now that is truly funny…
stating the obvious from the “UNCORRECTED” data sets…
Now you know that it isn’t right until someone ADJUSTS it don’t you?
I wonder if we correct to much to own demise….?
well that was brief and now locked out of their site. I guess open discussion of facts is not what they want… color me surprised….NOT!
this is clearly the problem with science today. dissenting opinion is not tolerated! especially if facts are attached.
Hats off to Anthony who at least allows us to discuss in a professional manner.
Bill H says:
October 18, 2010 at 9:45 pm
I’m supposing that the CT didn’t also ‘adjust’ the Antarctic Sea ice anomaly.
Roughly, I took the Arctic version and slid 2000 forward up 1M km^2, then did the graph magic overlay.
Northern is Black, Southern is grey:
http://www.robertb.darkhorizons.org/seaice.anomaly.Ant_arctic.jpg
The poles simply swapped roles. The Arctic 2007 melt looks no worse than the 1980 Antarctic melt, just 27 years apart.
anna v says:
October 18, 2010 at 9:37 pm
I’m still waiting for Spock to wake up from the Genesis Warming/Nomad experiment and reprise another “In Search of The coming Ice Age”. Better yet, can we get them all back on the Enterprise to defend Earth against the IceBorg?
Why would you compare the 80-90oN temp with the full globe polar ice?
RE: skepticalscience
www skepticalscience com (2008) VS. www skepticalscience com (2010)
(A view from the wayback Machine.)
2008:
web.archive.org/web/20080507024314/www.skepticalscience.com/ocean-and-global-warming.htm
“What the science says…
The notion that the ocean is causing global warming is ruled out by the observation that the ocean is warming (Levitus 2005). Internal climate changes such as El Nino and thermohaline variability stem from transfers of heat such as from the ocean to the atmosphere.
If the ocean was feeding atmospheric warming, the oceans would be cooling.”
2010:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/cooling-oceans.htm
“Claims that the ocean has been cooling are correct. Claims that global warming has stopped are not.”
What to make of this:
2008: “If the ocean was feeding atmospheric warming, the oceans would be cooling.”
2010: “Claims that the ocean has been cooling are correct.”
Re: skepticalscience
www skepticalscience com (2008) VS. www skepticalscience com (2010)
(A view from the wayback Machine.)
2008:
http://web.archive.org/web/20080502163611/www.skepticalscience.com/satellite-measurements-warming-troposphere.htm
“Climate models predict the troposphere should show greater warming than the surface”
2010:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/satellite-measurements-warming-troposphere.htm
“At least two other groups keep track of the tropospheric temperature using satellites and they all now show warming in the troposphere that is consistent with the surface temperature record.”
Hmmm, falsified prediction?
2008: “Climate models predict the troposphere should show greater warming than the surface”
2010: “warming in the troposphere that is consistent with the surface temperature record.”
Re: skepticalscience
www skepticalscience com (2008) VS. www skepticalscience com (2010)
(A view from the wayback Machine.)
Hurricane intensity as Evidence of global warming.
2008:
web.archive.org/web/20080719031424/www.skepticalscience.com/hurricanes-global-warming.htm
Strong links between Global Warming and hurricanes.
“While the empirical evidence linking global warming and hurricane intensity seems robust, it has no bearing on the central question of whether human CO2 emissions are causing global warming.”
2010:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/Hurricanes-And-Climate-Change-Boy-Is-This-Science-Not-Settled.html
“And to cap it off, two recent peer-reviewed studies completely contradict each other. One paper predicts considerably more storms due to global warming. Another paper suggests the exact opposite – that there will be fewer storms in the future.”
The data that was presented in the 2010 page ends in 2007, which is Not as expected (sort of)
HHmmm,,
In 2008 the Empirical Evidence was the ‘robust’ connection ‘linking global warming and hurricane intensity’.
In 2010: No correlation whatsoever.
Dr A Burns says:
October 18, 2010 at 9:08 pm
> DMI has an Arctic page but why no Antarctic page ?
DMI doesn’t have an Antarctic base; the Arctic is closer to them.
I believe the data show we began our gradual slide into the next ice age just about 2000 years ago. The trend since that time would seem to be a relentless march toward colder temperatures. What I expect to happen is that we will begin to see quite wide fluctuations in temperatures on the century scale. Until now we seem to have about a 400-500 year cycle of warm/cold. We had about 400 years of LIA and we will probably have about 400 years of Modern Warm Period (probably a bad name, maybe the Industrial Warm Period might be better) which will not reach the level of the Medieval Warm Period. I have a hunch that the next really cold spell will be colder than the LIA but we might be in for a period of rapidly oscillating warm/cold on a century scale if we are close to the tipping point into the ice age. I doubt we have another 1000 years left.
So I would not be surprised to see another really cold period start about around 2200 or so, give or take a hundred years, and it wouldn’t surprise me if that one is colder than the LIA.
Re: skepticalscience
They blow like the wind and change their arguments as often.
They abuse the data but never change their position. The just silently delete the old arguments as soon as any evidence does not support it.
Often the new argument completely contradicts the old ‘robust’ argument, which of course has been silently deleted from their web site.
Don’t bother trying to counter the skepticalscience.com junk, just wait a while, they will delete it and contradict it themselves soon enough.
They are just making stuff up.