By Steven Goddard
The American Thinker ran an article by Randall Hoven that asked “Was the Arctic Ice Cap ‘Adjusted’? The conclusion is based on the chosen value of concentration of ice in the “pole hole” where the satellite can’t measure due to inclination. See the image below from Cryosphere Today for an example:
The statement from the article below is correct, but slightly misleading because March ice concentration near the pole is always close to 100%
If we add the “pole hole” back to the measured “area,” we would get a downward trend in area due to the change in pole hole size in 1987. If we assume that the pole hole is 100% ice, then the downward trend in March would be 2.2% per decade. But if we assume that the pole hole is only 15% ice (the low end of what is assumed), then the downward trend is only 0.1% per decade, which is not statistically significant. (The corresponding downward trend for “extent” was 2.6% per decade.) It is true that whatever downward trend there is for March is due only to these adjustments (assumed pole hole size and concentration). And whether that trend is statistically significant depends on ice concentration in the “pole hole,” an assumed value.
If you look at essentially any available March concentration maps, you see concentrations near the pole close to 100%. 15% is not a reasonable number to work with, or even 80%.
If we adjust the March area for 100% concentration at the pole hole (below) the area and extent trends agree with each other just as expected.
The title of the article is “Was the Arctic Ice Cap ‘Adjusted’?” I believe the answer is yes. The extent/area data is adjusted – but correctly. Comparing this to “CRUgate shenanigans” doesn’t seem appropriate.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
The entry into the hollow Earth! It is visible in the photo! Behold the Pole Hole! 😉
The early 21st century loss of north polar ice was real, but the AGW cause has proven to be based on false assumptions. Unfortunately, as can be seen from Dr. Meier’s previous post today, this is not widely acknowledged.
Similarly the alarmists too often cling to trend calculations that are short term and, as is apparent here, erroneous long after the errors are shown.
Wile E. Coyote lost one of his ACME instant holes!
Still reviewing this site:
http://www.climatebasics.com/
Looks like a black hole. We’re all going to die, including the polar bears.
The teenager fell into the anecdote hole at the pole. It was ice water.
Will the satellite launched yesterday have a slightly different orbit?
Look for step changes in historical data due to changes in hardware and software used to record and evaluate this phenomena. With advances in technology the resolution gets finer which makes to errors in the historical data greater. I would like to be able to use their algorithm when balancing my check book if 15% = 100% I would just need to separate my funds into different accounts. Then set a sum equal to 100% and claim any sum greater than 15% is actually 100%.
The sea ice extent and area is an interesting issue to watch however I would not claim any historical significance on the results that are currently provided. Also with the AO controlling the amount of sea ice at the north pole the use of 20 or 30 years for a base period is questionable because you are only looking at a portion of an event. This would be like watching the first quarter of a game and declaring a winner for the entire season!
Doug in Seattle (09:38:46) :
This time, I believe the trend error is from the skeptic side.
Why can’t the ice extent of the ‘hole’ be interpolated from the ice extents all around it? If the areas just outside of the hole are all at 100% ice, presume the hole is also 100% ice.
Is that so tough?
Myron Mesecke (09:39:45) :
LOL very good!
Look how (nearly) uniformly dark that purple is for 2010!
Just take the Catlin’s expedition members and drop them down there!
Oh c’mon, everybody knows that that hole is where the aliens come from. I’ve known that since the 1950’s when that learned journal, The National Enquirer, ran an article exposing the issue.
How come there seems to be always some statistical manipulation or assumption involved?
And I don’t care what side it favors — in climate “science” nothing is as it appears.
No wonder a lot of us folks don’t trust this stuff.
And they want to tax all of us based on this — no way!
Why are you focussed on one signal? We don’t even have a good explanation of why Artic ice retreats and expands. Sure, currents and wind have a great influence but there are probaly other factors like the warming periods in the 20thC. Don’t stress out on this. The Artic won’t melt or even if it does, does it matter? It won’t prove AGW. Just write/email your MP or Congressman – CO2 is not a pollutant – we need it and it has nothing to do with the warming.
John, No. i believe that is Mr Goddard’s thesis.
John S.,
Its not tough at all. That’s what they do when calculating sea ice extent.
Hope that 15 year old kid doesn’t fall into it
Bill Marsh (10:11:29) said:
Yeah, I know. The National Enquirer has been wrong about pretty much everything. Who could ever believe that such a nice guy like John Edwards would do what they claimed.
I guess the aliens gave it away.
“I like the pole AND the hole!”
(see special features from “Strangers With Candy” for full context)
Better late than never – in the article’s Update section, he finally figures out that the NSIDC not plotting the area for which they had no data actually makes it look like the Arctic ice is not declining in March. The blindspot (pole hole) changed from 1.19 million sq km to .31 million sq km in 1987 – in effect, shifting all the March sea ice area data from 1988 onward up by 0.88 million sq km.
Randall Hoven was pretty excited about the sea ice area data, until he realized that. He probably wouldn’t have written the article at all if he understood, before he wrote it, what others pointed out to him:
It is true that whatever downward trend there is for March is due only to these adjustments (assumed pole hole size and concentration)
Yes, the bold assumption that the tiny circle around 90° N is frozen solid at the peak of the Winter freeze underlies the downward trend seen for March.
assumed pole hole size??? – does he doubt orbital dynamics, too ?
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/polar.orbit.example.gif
Not to fear, the European Cryosat-2 satellite will measure the poiar caps.
It was launched today.
The following press release makes the usual dubious claims:
http://www.dlr.de/en/desktopdefault.aspx/tabid-6216/10226_read-23282/
Actually, “pole hole” would make a pretty good nickname for certain members of the alarmist community! Sorry, couldn’t resist, snip away!
This is more than slightly OT, but one thing that puzzles me about the 1980-1995 versus 2010 comparison is how much more sharply defined the ice edges are in 2010. In 1980-1995 pictures, there is much more light purple, red, and yellow (as opposed to the deep purple which indicates 100% ice on the water).
Does anyone know why the difference, whether it’s real or instrumental artifact, and (if artifact) how it’s accounted for?
I am glad this has all been explained to me. After listening to Congressional testimony, I had thought it might have come about because the Catlin expedition and the kid on skis had all gotten to the north pole and capsized the ice there. I mean they have been telling me its been flippy and rotten now for a while. Quite the relief that there will still be Darwin award candidates available in the future.