By Steve Goddard
In recent articles, I have have been discussing GISS’ claim that their divergence from Had-Crut over the last decade is due to better Arctic coverage.
They use the two images below to justify their claims.
The GISS 2005 image is deceptive, because GISS uses 1200km smoothing. Their actual 2005 Arctic coverage (using 250km smoothing) is below, and shows that they have very little data north of 75 degrees.
GISS 2005 Annual Map – 250km smoothing
In order to make it easy to visualize the differences in coverage between GISS and Had-Crut, I mapped them onto 3D spheres, which eliminates the infinite distortion near the poles in this favorite GISS projection. I also threw in a recent NASA/NOAA/UAH equivalent map. None of these images have been cropped.
![[Image]](http://discover.itsc.uah.edu/amsutemps/browse/AMSU_A_15.latest.a_01.png)
NOAA satellite map used by UAH
The images were created by taking the maps, replacing the gray areas which “signify missing data” with black, scaling the images to 512×512, and mapping them on to an OpenGL sphere. Assuming that the original maps all reach 90N at their top, the images are an accurate representation of their coverage. That probably is not exactly correct, but is close. It appears from the NOAA/UAH map geography that they have coverage further north than 82.5°.
Conclusion: GISS claims of better 2005 Arctic coverage in their recent paper are not justified.
UPDATE: Steve has rendered this video for further discussion.
Phil,
Your ad homs are getting pretty lame. I see that you ignored the “super special” video I made just for you. Here it for the third time. Please comment.
Phil,
OK I see that you did comment. Apparently you believe that it is problematic for UAH to infill from somewhere north of 82.5, but OK for GISS to infill from 70N? LOL
I can also see that you are having a tough time with the original video, which shows the extent of the measured satellite coverage.
sunsettommy
Whoa, REALLY nice AMO/Barents Sea temp correlation. THANKS!!! My statistical model says that AMO is the 2nd largest driver of global temperature (closely followed by the ENSO cycle). This clues me in a little on how and why.
(Sorry, GHGs are the main driver. I really need to work on some higher order non-linear regressions though, cuz I think El Nino may deserve 2nd place; 2nd/3rd is neck and neck.)
R. Gates said on May 21, 2010 at 11:16 pm:
Well gee, you could have started at the Polar Science Center page that ties all of that together. There you can read interesting stuff like this from the “Purpose” section:
The second “here” link goes to an ever-helpful paywall for Geophysical Research Letters where a 2007 paper exists. The first goes to an area the browser says is titled “Ignatius G. Rigor’s Home Page.” What immediately comes up is another paper from Geophysical Research Letters from 2004, “Variations in the Age of Arctic Sea-ice and Summer Sea-ice Extent.” The area has frames with a left-side page selector, from “Some Research Highlights” we can find “2008 Outlook for Arctic Sea Ice this Summer” which has:
For disclosure, it says this at the bottom of the selector:
Regular readers here know full well how fair and balanced NASA, NOAA, and the NSF are with regards to anything (C)AGW related, such as the Arctic Ice Death Spiral. Opinions about the NIC and ONR are welcomed.
The second link you provided, which is in the tie-together page I linked to in its “Model Validation” section, goes to a page headlined by:
We find some interesting info at the bottom (emphasis added):
The goal was not to develop something that would compute ice volume period, but would project the loss of ice “under multiple warming scenarios”. At least that’s my take on it. And, surprise, the model likes to keep showing ice volume going down.
Back at the tie-together page under “Model Validation” we find:
Yet it has been said before how spotty and unreliable the non-satellite measurements were and are. Does this mean PIOMAS was validated to statistical garbage? Well, they do provide this excellent graph showing it validated to IceSat. In one month of the year, November, from 2003 to 2007 (five points), the PIOMAS model did match a simple part of a curve, actually somewhat well for the first four points while not really missing it to the last one.
Obviously PIOMAS can be trusted to model both past and present Arctic ice volumes as it has been validated to observations previously declared unusable rubbish and several satellite data points. It does an excellent job showing declining ice, per project aim #2 shown above. I can clearly see why (C)AGW proponents like to continually promote that terrifying anomaly graph as showing THE REAL STORY about Arctic Ice. Why, even the 75% warmers love it.
[snip – no more comments until apology is made on the other thread regarding your claims of conspiracy]
R. Gates
I’m not sure what your conspiracy theory is, but for the record I do this for fun. I have no affiliations to any energy related industry, I don’t get paid, and have only met a couple of prominent skeptics for a total of about two hours.
stevengoddard says:
May 22, 2010 at 12:06 pm
R. Gates
I’m not sure what your conspiracy theory is, but for the record I do this for fun. I have no affiliations to any energy related industry, I don’t get paid, and have only met a couple of prominent skeptics for a total of about two hours.
________________
I am not, repeat NOT, insinuating any conspiracies and have no such conspiracy theory, but what I am saying is that lot’s of money is at stake on both sides of this issue, and that money can tend to skew perceptions and “public relations” efforts on both sides of the issue. Most of your postings are quite informative and I learn a great deal from them, and I appreciate the fact that you don’t mix politics into them.
BTW, I can see that I need to do a better job of letting people know when I’m being sarcastic, although I hate to just come out and say “sarcasm” as it a takes the punch out of it, kind of like kissing your own sister or like a comic holding up a sign saying, “I’m being funny now.”
Not so funny…
So no, there is no UHI conspiracy going on in Dealey Plaza…or…is there?
REPLY: standard blog practice is to end the saracasm with /sarc off
stevengoddard says:
May 22, 2010 at 10:14 am
Phil,
OK I see that you did comment.
Well you have to remember that I’m on moderator delay.
Apparently you believe that it is problematic for UAH to infill from somewhere north of 82.5, but OK for GISS to infill from 70N? LOL
No, it’s that you’ve spent the last couple of days denying that UAH did any infilling, glad to see you’ve come round.
I can also see that you are having a tough time with the original video, which shows the extent of the measured satellite coverage.
It shows the extent of a NOAA satellite, but not the UAH MSU coverage which you unfortunately labelled it as.
By the way there are no ad homs.
Phil
These articles are about GISS generating imaginary temperature data across the Arctic, and it appears that you will do almost anything to change the subject.
John Galt II says:
May 22, 2010 at 12:25 am
“Another great post from Mr. Goddard!”
Agreed!
stevengoddard says:
May 22, 2010 at 1:30 pm
Phil
These articles are about GISS generating imaginary temperature data across the Arctic, and it appears that you will do almost anything to change the subject.
They are also about UAH generating ‘imaginary’ temperature data across the Arctic since the original poster (you) also posted images showing such ‘imaginary’ data. However you refuse to acknowledge that fact. GISS uses a method based on determined correlation lengths to interpolate/extrapolate data into adjacent areas without coverage. UAH infills into the uncovered areas by some as yet undescribed method (maybe they use the GISS method). Don’t complain about my discussing the subject when you post here targeted at me demanding a response!
stevengoddard says:
May 22, 2010 at 6:25 am
Phil,
There is something interesting in the UAH map, but not what you were expecting…
stevengoddard says:
May 22, 2010 at 10:10 am
Phil,
I see that you ignored the “super special” video I made just for you. Here it for the third time. Please comment.
It would appear that it’s you who’s changing the subject.
Phil,
Like I said, you will do anything to avoid discussing the problems with GISS coverage.
Thanks Steve, some good information.
You should also make the readers realize that the area occupied by the arctic cap north of 82° latitude is but ½ of one percent of the earth’s total area. Unless mistaken, just 1/200 of the Earth’s area. When you look at many projections this gets distorted to a huge, huge degree. Even looking at your spherical views above which are perfectly realistic it is still hard to guesstimate just how much of total area of the Earth we are speaking of in these heated discussions.
I had no idea before calculating the exact value that it was so very small. Some are basing fear comments on the Earth’s climate on just ½ of 1% of the area? The area above the arctic circle at 66° 30’ is but 1/24 of the earth’s surface area. I’ll never look at these arctic discussions the same, I had always assumed it was much more.
If someone needs to calculate other latitudes or just verify the above: in compact form, φ = 82«deg» as latitude in radians and 2π (1 – cos(½π – φ)) / «4π sr» → «pct» = 0.49%. («4π sr» = 4π for sr (steradian) just = 1).
wayne
Stay tuned ;^)
Re : Ice Volume
1. It is falling so fast, I e-mailed the university that it will go off the (bottom) of the chart in mere weeks
2. When assessing Honesty, my background in History suggest “Argument Against Interest” is best, ie, the Piomas model may be intended for USE by AGW predictors, but when giving a value AFTER the fact, based on all the non-Satellite data, it was almost perfect save ONE data point: it UNDERSTATED the actual 2007 drop that IceSat found http://psc.apl.washington.edu/ArcticSeaiceVolume/images/IceVolAnomaly19792010.MarNov2.png — now any AGW’s want Big Scary Drops of course: not to UNDERESTIMATE them !
— So: clearly this is just a result of 2007 being the only time any melting near the CENTER of the Arctic happened. And all the Shore stations, ships, & shore-based planes that supply PIOMAS its data, are going to MISS that — it is out of their range.
3… the Modellers that use PIOMAS all want PROGRESSIVE melting — a little more each year, in line with AGW
— THIS year’s melt would be from a NATURAL EVENT — the big El Nino, 4th largest in 60 years — so they IGNORE that in their Projections. Like with their 2008 predictions that did not match the Model, PIOMAS, when used to extrapolate shore & spotty Airplane thickness data into a whole-arctic Volume , produces results NOT to their liking ! !
Thus, it IS honest.
Thus, the present near vertical drop , IS correct for Last week — but may turn right back up again, Next Week. Or not.
And it will underestimate Volume Losses far from Shore — once they start Occurring. Because MY estimate is based on the strength of the El Nino relative to 2007’s and Thus:
2007 = -4000 km3 relative to previous Minimum, TIMES:
1.8 (2009-10 ONI rating) over 1.1 (2006-7 ONI) EQUALS:
– 6545 km3 from 2009, which being 5800, means:
ZERO Ice at this years’ minimum. AND it’ll melt EARLY.
All the GISS data, methods and code are freely downloadable. And their code has been independently rewritten by volunteers of the Clear Climate Code project to be clearer and better explained. And a number of independent individuals and teams have taken the data and produced their own versions of the analysis, showing essentially the same result.
If there is such distrust of the GISS and si milar products among the skeptic community, why have none produced and published their own alternative version?
Craig Allen
Phil Jones produced an alternative version.
http://climateinsiders.files.wordpress.com/2010/05/gissvshadcrut1.jpg?w=510&h=227&h=227
Charles Wilson says:
May 22, 2010 at 7:02 pm
ZERO Ice at this years’ minimum. AND it’ll melt EARLY.
Fun.
Not long to wait. In the meanwhile, have a look at this camera from Greek Macedonia, a ski resort, note the date:
http://www.snowreport.gr/snowcam/kaimaktsalan/sarantovrisi.jpg
It is not often that in May in Greece one may choose between swimming and skiing.
Maybe all that ice tunneled quantum mechanically to Kaimaktsalan 🙂
I really don’t like all the yelling and bold print…makes me want to put my earplugs in…
Anyway, there’s a bit of a heatwave going on above the arctic circle this coming week in Alaska….check out this forecast for Venetie Alaska (above the Arctic Circle):
http://www.weather.com/outlook/travel/businesstraveler/tenday/99781?par=Google&site=earth.google.com&promo=0&cm_ven=bd_select&cm_cat=Google&cm_pla=earth.google.com&cm_ite=map
It is projected to hit 90 degrees there on Tuesday…and nearby Ft. Yukon, also above the Arctic Circle is also set to hit 90:
http://www.weather.com/outlook/travel/businesstraveler/tenday/99740?par=Google&site=earth.google.com&promo=0&cm_ven=bd_select&cm_cat=Google&cm_pla=earth.google.com&cm_ite=map
Hard for all the permafrost to hold up under temps like that…
Craig Allen said on May 22, 2010 at 9:31 pm:
Hansen wrote his paper detailing his method of mixing manure. Some have replicated the manure mixer he built, others have taken his concepts and made their own mixers. And sure enough, whether from Hansen’s own GISTemp or the recreations, manure gets shoveled in, and out comes smoothed homogenized manure. Which is still manure, smelling even more wonderful than usual.
Provided you are open to reason, please go read E.M. Smith’s in-depth analyzing of GISTemp, found here. If you don’t feel like diving into the code to see what GISTemp actually does, and taking notice where this differs from what is said that it does, at least read the “GIStemp – A Human View” page for a relatively simple description of just how much of a screwed-up mess it all is.
Lovely idea. You providing the funding for that? Actually, the historical temperature records can be a complete mess, with many strange cases, documented here and elsewhere, where the “raw” data available already has been adjusted, and even the truly raw data is questionable. Thus if all we really have to start with is manure, is there a good reason why we should design and build our own manure mixers?
R. Gates says:
May 22, 2010 at 9:53 pm
Hard for all the permafrost to hold up under temps like that…
Permafrost, as its name says, is permanent frost, half a meter or so below the surface that hosts plants.
I was once on June 21st in Finnland for a workshop, a date where they have their light holiday and the temperatures were mild. We were on wooded island and people had to bring their drinks with them because the small bar was forbidden to serve more than beer.
What amazed me was not that people were getting drunk from bottles in their back pocket and falling down senseless in the woods. It was the young men on shift with armbands of the redcross carrying a stretcher and going into the woods picking up the dropped down drunks and storing them like logs in a room next to the bar.
I was told that if they were left in the woods they would freeze and die, because of the permafrost the temperature of the soil was freezing , despite the 24 hour day ( the sun just dipped and came up again in half an hour).
So, yes, the permafrost is well insulated and survives.
R. Gates
Can we purchase a good second hand raw data synthesizer on E-bay? It seems like the Hadley unit will be replaced with A newer unit that can reach the high notes better.
How do they gather data that justifies higher temperature readings where they have not collected data?
Didn’t deniers learn to leave ice visualization, and other matters they don’t understand, alone back when Steve Goddard embarrassed himself counting pixels? Interesting that deniers still cite that Register url as proof of something or other. Apparently they never make it to the retraction added at the bottom.
http://scienceblogs.com/islandofdoubt/2008/08/how_to_admit_youre_wrong.php
That prediction that “Arctic Ice will Continue to Recover” was off the mark on 2 accounts, the first was that a recovery was occurring. The mass of ice in the arctic has continued to decline, year over year. The 1 month recovery in area was of great interest to deniers who don’t understand the difference between sq meters of ice and cubic meters, but NSIDC accurately predicted that the new thin ice would melt rapidly.
Heat Pumps and Air Conditioners are rated by tons of ice per hour (varies with volume), not by sq yards of ice. The reason for that is the difference between sq meters of ice and cubic meters.
Arctic Ice Area has declined at a rapid rate. It is not below the area for this time in 2007, despite the late start to the melting season.
http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/daily_images/N_stddev_timeseries.png
Yet another folded bluff from the “global warming isn’t happening” theorists.
Visualizing Arctic Ice behavior appears to need this same kind of analysis. The Arctic, (once again I repeat), is not “a” sea. It is many. It is not a single weather pattern variation zone either. It is many. It would be worthwhile to start a thread about the various areas of the Arctic that respond to the various incoming systems in unique and multiple ways. To talk about Arctic sea ice behavior as a single entity, and predict its melt as a single entity is way off reality.