Back on April 2nd, it looked like Arctic Sea ice extent at NSIDC would cross the “normal” line. See: Arctic Sea Ice Extent Update: still growing
The image then looked like this:
Now before anyone starts trotting out claims of “adjustments”, I’ll point out that the independent JAXA data set, done with a different satellite and the AMSR-E sensor shows the same thing:
Note the area I’ve highlighted inside the box. Here is that area magnified below:
The NSIDC presentation is zoomed to show the current period of interest, whereas the JAXA presentation shows the entire annual cycle. So we notice small changes in NSIDC more often. Also, the NSIDC presentation is a running 5 day average according to Dr. Walt Meier.
Of course whether you are scientist, scholar, layman, casual observer, or zealot, nature never gives a care as to what we might expect it to do.
So worry not, no skullduggery is afoot. Nature is just laughing at all of us.
Nah, it’s just tipping over and ready to capsize from so many people looking at it.
Smokey (12:51:09) is right. AGW is not a theory, because climate models are unphysical. They are untestable in the scientific sense because the change in any climate observable in the last 130 years is smaller than their uncertainty limits.
AGW rests entirely on false precision; not only in climate model output but also in proxy thermometry and in the surface temperature record. No professional has seen fit to honestly propagate the errors in any of these fields. The whole business is the most shameful display of willful scientific negligence ever.
Always with the statistics, damned lies and statistics. A five day running average – sheesh who needs that and why? I gather that I’ll have to plot my own without statistics assuming the data file they let you download hasn’t been polluted by their math. I want RAW DATA please. Sigh.
I clicked on the Meg Witman ad. Maybe there is a future for California.
Manfred,
I have admitted several times that I am only 75% convinced that AGWT is correct. I may appear as “spamster” because I certainly am among the minority here on WUWT, and so I have lots of gist to respond to. I will stay right here, and watch the trends of the arctic sea ice this year (and the next, and the next…) right along with the rest of you. If some long term positive arctic sea ice anomaly starts to emerge over a period of years, not days or months, then I’ve already admitted that I’ll begin to question the validiity of AGWT and models.
I should think that all the AGW sceptics here find my posts of service, in the same way that honest climate researchers should appreciate honest sceptics making them prove what they say. I think there is a lot of nonsense on this site that passes for science fact, and I think it is healthy to be sceptical about the facts that sceptics put forth.
I also, don’t have much of a life…but I consider being called a “spammer” as quite rude as well as wrong. I do tend to post more when the thread is about sea ice as it is my ‘acid test’ for my overall belief in the validity of AGWT. I could generally care less about the political and other social commentary that goes on here, and I would think a “spammer” would really care about that sort of rot…
It would be hard for NSIDC to get away with some monkey business in the graph because so many people are watching Arctic (North Pole) Ice and they have other graphs to compare theirs to and keep them honest. So the data (in this case anyway) has to be accurate.
But how the data is spun, well, that’s another story.
………………………………………………………………………………………………
Thanks Anthony Scalzi for the neat-o animation! 🙂
It’s not that it’s necessarily not a good idea to make calculations on the data, that is needed for various analysis of course. However, to not give up the RAW DATA and to not clearly spell out ALL THE MATH used in the construction of a particular visual representation is a form of at least deceit by omission – even if unintentional, fabrication of data is fabrication of data, statistics mess up the data.
Please scientists stop presenting statistical analysis as if it’s real. It’s not, it’s abstract. Running averages alter the graph. Stop it. USE THE REAL DATA. At least present TWO GRAPHS, one with the RAW DATA plotted unadjusted in any way and one with the lies, damned lies and your pet that obeys your bais, statistics.
If you can’t see the raw data next to the analysis you can’t see how the analysis distorts reality. Analysis is supposed to show you aspects of the data that might otherwise not pop out, to use it as if it’s what is really happening is fraud, intentional or otherwise. Provide and plot the REAL RAW UNADJUSTED DATA please as the FIRST PRIORITY for HONESTY and INTEGRITY and AUTHENTICITY. If it’s not raw, they don’t pretend that it is. Tell it like it is and as a scientist you’ll at least have integrity even if your analysis method is bunk.
Please inform people that they are only seeing an analysis, one possible visual representation of the data adjusted by statistical means (spelling those out in detail with all source codes and raw data so we can run the program to verify it for ourselves or make changes to the program to validate or improve the representation).
Thanks.
R. Gates-
“With the negative AO of this winter, we’ve had warmth and high pressure parked over N. Canada and Greenland…”
“..we’ve also had some warm Atlantic water near Greenland.”
“..the net effect of all the warmth this winter in parts of the arctic..”
With all that “warmth” in the arctic the Inuit will be cutting their lawns much sooner this year…
R. Gates (13:13:27) :
In short, saying the ‘wind’ did it, does not in any many disassociate the wind from warming (for we know warming caused the wind initially) nor by extention, disassociate it from AGW.
Do you consider the Earth and corresponding atmosphere
spinning at over a 1000 MPH; wind? Or is it relative, and is
the moon raising the oceans energy, or is everything caused
by my SUV?
R. Gates (13:38:43)
that posting is appreciated. replace spam with frequent.
R. Gates (13:38:43) :
Manfred,
I should think that all the AGW sceptics here find my posts of service, in the same way that honest climate researchers should appreciate honest sceptics making them prove what they say.
Your explanation of the way modelling works *was* of service. It took a bit of cogitation to follow you through unfamiliar territory, but at the end, I understood both methods you addressed.
Thanks.
boing!
R. Gates (13:13:27) :
AGW as the ‘irresistable force’ that cannot be acted upon externally, continues to circulate with ever-increasing amounts of energy, melting everything in it’s path but never using a drop of it’s energy?
Sounds like a death sentence for civilization.
Seems to me that the AGW Energy is getting rather exhausted or unplugged from it’s infinite power source.
AGW-alarmists will change their story:
No more “Arctic will lose all of its ice next summer” but “Record low ice conditions off the Canadian east coast” (http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/index.html).
Seems to be easy: Just take the right part of the whole and you see what you want to see:
“… average ice conditions off the east coast of Canada were at record lows during the first three weeks of February. Sea ice charts prepared by the Canadian Ice Service show that ice coverage in the Labrador Sea and Gulf of St. Lawrence was the lowest for that time period since analysts started charting the region in 1969.”
Probably no more ice bears at the east coast of Canada …
Anthony says:
“REPLY: Note the label in the graph: “The latest date in 2010 is 03/30″. Once they get it updated I think it will look much like NSIDC. – Anthony”
I think you’re missing something important. Smokey posted a graph of Sea Ice Area. That’s the relevant distinction, not that the area data covers only up to 3/30; therefore the answers won’t look similar for the reason you suggest. The big story here is not the sea ice extent right now. Sure, that’s mostly due to fringe issues.
The big story is that the ice remains very densely packed in the Beaufort Sea. Ice concentration is very high, which is why the sea ice area is now well above the median. This is true throughout the arctic basin and nearly all of the surrounding seas.
I had hoped, when I predicted this, that people would not make wild accusations. See:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/03/31/arctic-sea-ice-about-to-hit-normal-what-will-the-news-say/#comments
4/1/10 at 09:15
Unfortunate.
R. Gates (13:38:43):
Since you deliberately ignore the fact that AGW is not a scientific Theory, then as Manfred points out, you are just spamming the thread for your own amusement.
It is no different than if you constantly insisted that the study of stars and galaxies was astrology, or that science is based on Scientology.
This is the internet’s “Best Science” site. Astrology, chemtrails, HAARP, etc., are not acceptable. Improperly mislabeling AGW as a Theory, when it is not, is just as inappropriate. Further, it is dishonest. You have repeatedly been given the correct definitions of scientific Theory, Hypothesis, Conjecture, and Law, but you continue to misuse the terms.
Words have meaning. Deliberately misrepresenting the meaning of a scientific Theory is pseudo-science. It doesn’t belong here.
If you refuse to use the correct terminology, you are simply trolling. That may work at realclimate, climate progress, tamino, etc. But they are unconcerned with scientific accuracy because they are alarmist propaganda blogs. That’s why they have the same small group of posters, and why their traffic numbers are so low.
Go back to one of them if you insist on deliberately misusing the proper terms. Here, it is simple courtesy to use correct scientific terms.
Smokey:
Our little shack in the Internet does not have the privilege of stifling debate with semantics. If the rest of the world considers AGW a theory, then there is nothing wrong with someone coming here and expressing that opinion or working from that premise. This does not meant that that opinion cannot be challenged or debated, but to dismiss based on “Does it meet the definition of a Theory”, while setting the terms for that definition in a potentially straw man manner is not really what we should be discussing here.
Theories may be falsified, but it is silly to debate whether it is a theory or not.
Oops. “If it’s not raw, they don’t pretend that it is.” is supposed to say “If it’s not raw, THEN don’t pretend that it is.”
jeez-
I provided a link to support my position.
If there is a credible alternate definition of a scientific Theory, which can be based on secret data and methods, please post the link.
But it sounds like a conjecture to me.
If i’m not mistaken, most commenters on this site disagree with the “catastrophic” part of AGW.
IMO, the word “catastrophic” should always be used (and spelled out), in the discussion.
I’m pretty sure the “catastrophic” part, has been invalidated.
Smokey (14:21:20) : “Here, it is simple courtesy to use correct scientific terms.”
With the ice doing much better than expected and dashing the hopes of warmers to celebrate, does the term “awsheet” count?
OT:
In France, the “climatecensorship” discipline has been added to the wide array of climate science disciplines linked to the IPCC.
There is nothing wrong with your computer. Do not attempt to adjust the picture. We are controlling transmission. If we wish to make it louder, we will bring up the volume. If we wish to make it softer, we will tune it to a whisper. We will control the horizontal. We will control the vertical. We can roll the image, make it flutter. We can change the focus to a soft blur or sharpen it to crystal clarity. For the next hour, sit quietly and we will control all that you see and hear. We repeat: there is nothing wrong with your television set. You are about to participate in a great adventure. You are about to experience the awe and mystery which reaches from the inner mind to… The Barrier Limits.
Craig Moore (14:36:42),
Since it’s not a recognized term in science, it doesn’t seem discourteous to me. More like something a warmist would mumble when he sees this graph: click
u.k.(us) –
u make a point that concerns me most. aren’t there any avenues that can prevent the media from using generic ‘climate change’ or ‘global warming’ as synonyms for CAGW? it is the same as ‘misleading advertising’ and leads to madness such as der spiegel’s claim recently that: ““(Steve)McIntyre asserts that he believes in Climate Change” to suggest this means he believes in CAGW!
somehow the media must be stopped.
Al Gore knows how to control the message, AP assists!
WRAL: AP: Gore gets camera-shy for N.C. speech, limits media
PIC CAPTION: Nobel Peace Prize winner Al Gore holds his medal and diploma at the Nobel Peace Prize ceremony in Oslo, Norway on Dec. 10. Gore was awarded the prize for sounding the alarm over global warming and spreading awareness on how to counteract it. (AP Photo/Odd Andersen)
A Gore aide said Tuesday that media members will only be allowed to record video and audio of the first five minutes of Gore’s talk at Duke University on April 8. Photography will also be limited. Gore spokeswoman Kalee Kreider said the restrictions are standard for his talks but she wouldn’t say why they are in place..
Duke spokeswoman Scottee Cantrell said Gore will speak for about 45 minutes and take questions collected from students.
Gore won the Nobel Peace Prize in 2007 for his advocacy of environmental issues, particularly his push to highlight global warming.
http://www.wral.com/news/state/story/7330903/