Sea ice extent – answer to skepticalscience.com

Guest Post by Frank Lansner (frank),
Answer to the Skepticalscience.com article:

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/

Advertisements

  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of
JDN

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

Paul Deacon, Christchurch, New Zealand

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.

Peter Sørensen

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

David A. Evans

JDN says:
October 18, 2010 at 8:33 pm
Frank is German. His English is good. Stop nit picking.
DaveE.

rbateman

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.

Dr A Burns

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.

Regg_upnorth

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.

jorgekafkazar

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.

Peter Sørensen

DMI is the Danish met office and since greenland is part of Denmark they deal with the arctic and not the antarctic.

orkneygal

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.

intrepid_wanders

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.

anna v

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?

Bill H

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….?

Bill H

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.

rbateman

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.

rbateman

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?

HR

Why would you compare the 80-90oN temp with the full globe polar ice?

Andrew30

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.”

Andrew30

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.”

Andrew30

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.

crosspatch

What’s so bad for diminishing ice for a while longer when we know that the next ice age is around the corner?

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.

Andrew30

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.

R. de Haan

Very nice work Frank, I really hope they deserve such an extensive and well founded answer.

Stephan

CT needs AGW funds the NH graphs are all rigged to show extra melting, period. Just look at the borders areas and the way they calculate ice extent. DMI is the only one I trust

Andrew30

This one speaks for itself.
“Tuesday, 18 December, 2007
Has solar cycle 24 begun?
Being a bit of a solar geek, I take great interest in the fact that magnetic activity has been spotted on the sun’s surface that may signify the beginning of solar cycle 24. ”
“The one thing we know is over the next 5 years, solar activity will continue to rise, peaking around 2012.”
WE KNOW?
These people are sort of funny in a sad kind of way.
http://web.archive.org/web/20080507024305/www.skepticalscience.com/Has-solar-cycle-24-begun.html
Can’t seem to find it on the current web site. Deleted perhaps?
Check out http://web.archive.org/web/20080507024305/www.skepticalscience.com it is good for a few laughs.

pat

Now the warmists are engaging in out and out fraud. No longer are we dealing with the ‘homogenization’ of actual data to satisfy the lust of scientists faced with information that is contrary to their grant and ego needs. Now we are dealing with pure deception.

tty

JDN says:
“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. ”
This is an absurd idea. In the Baltic the ice melts every spring and refreezes next winter and has done so throughout history. And since the Baltic is fairly shallow the water even warms to bathable temperatures in summer.
And lest somebody claim that it would be different in a deep and salty sea, exactly the same thing happens in the Sea of Okhotsk.
There is no way a sea can stay open through the dark of an arctic winter, and nowadays most arctic geologists think that there was probably winter ice in the Arctic even during the warmest intervals in the past when summer SST’s were at 20+ degrees centigrade.

The Ghost Of Big Jim Cooley

I agree with some others here, in that we shouldn’t be giving the website any mention. If you go there you’ll get rabid responses, and that’s if your post doesn’t get deleted – even when it’s fully on-topic and abides by the rules. Like Tamino, they don’t like the truth, only to reinforce what they already think.

HR says:
October 18, 2010 at 10:37 pm
Why would you compare the 80-90oN temp with the full globe polar ice?
Hi mr Ewing (?)
In my original article i simply pointed out that DMI´s melt-season over the Arctic is becoming colder since 1991. It really significant from + 1,3 Celsius to now just + 0,3 Celsius. This happens at the same time Sea ice is reduced and might indicate that other factors than melting have caused the ice retreat too. Never mind what the reason is, I think it is 100% scientifically fair to point out this interesting phenomena, that melting seasons are colder when the ice extend is reduced.
I cant say I have the full explanation.
The DMI data is based on (modelled) data from bouys actually in the ocean rather than GISS data that are sitet far away on land. Therefore, the GISS data to me appears weakest.
So, “Why would you compare the 80-90oN temp with the full globe polar ice?”
Its because Skeptical science when confronted with the 80-90N summer DMI data showing cooling, they dont want to find out how this can be, what is the exciting scientific explanation. They in stead want to look at something else, the 80-90N FULL year data which is warming. To this kind of escape from any cooling dataset I say: Ok, if you want to look at FULL year for some reason, why not go all the way and also look at the FULL globe??
If we have GLOBAL warming, and ICE-extend for some reason is used to show this, then its fair to sometimes also examine the GLOBAL ice extend 🙂
Im not comparing 80-90N summer DMI data with any global data, im just showing the GLOBAL trends as well.
AND : Then i think that the Cryosphere-correction needed more attention, its not mentioned much on the net, so here it is graphically illustrated not to be forgotten 🙂
K.R. Frank

John Peter

” David A. Evans says:
October 18, 2010 at 9:01 pm
JDN says:
October 18, 2010 at 8:33 pm
Frank is German. His English is good. Stop nit picking.
DaveE.”
To the best of my knowledge Frank Lansner is Danish. His English is not perfect, but the same could be said about many living in an English speaking country. He is an important voice in Denmark, where there has been a gradual move from scepticism towards AGW belief and don’t forget that Danish Connie Hedegaard is the EU Climate Change commissioner and is totally “sold” on the AGW belief mantra.

Alexej Buergin

Frank Lasner is a German, uses a decimal-comma but suppresses degrees (0,34°C and 80°N)? Does he type on an American keyboard?

Günther Kirschbaum

Frank: You need an editor.
extend -> extent

Oh dear, that says it all really about how much effort this person has put into increasing his knowledge wrt Arctic sea ice. WUWT quality, as usual.

John Marshall

I repeat, 30 years of data is far too short a time for for any meaningful trend to develop. Ice will vary every year, temperatures will vary every day. Get used to it alarmists.
Oh, tipping points do not happen with climate, never did in the past will never happen in the future.

Peter and others: Yes im Danish, like Connie Hedegaard, Henrik Svensmark, Bjorn Lomborg, Leif Svalgaard etc.
I believe that Denmark and perhaps Germany, Scandiavia etc. are indeed some of the strongest areas of global warming belief and fear, and also global warming misinformation in medias. Therefore the climate-debate is important in these areas.
So far no one has explained why DMI data 80-90N melt season temperature trend is so radically different from GISS june and july temperature trend in the same area for 1991-2010.
(I really trust DMI, that they play a honest game all the way. The employees at DMI appears strongly in favour of the global warming idea to me, but I have never seen any sign of DMI giving in and making global warming friendly data or the like.)
R. de Haan: Thankyou so much!!!

Richard S Courtney

Rocky Balboa says:
October 18, 2010 at 9:17 pm
“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.”
YES! YES! YES!
Ignore them and please do not give them any traffic.
Richard

I tried to answer at skeptical science, but my answer was removed after 20 minutes….
Maybe it’s correct like Richard S. Courtney says, to ignore them, but that site appears like a bible to many alarmists.
So im not really sure how to deal with them.
K.R. Frank

Dave Springer

anna v says:
October 18, 2010 at 9:37 pm

What’s so bad for diminishing ice for a while longer when we know that the next ice age is around the corner?

You have to be an ice hugger to appreciate the catastrophic nature of it. For everyone else it’s like “so what, who needs it”.

Dave Springer

@Frank
Rest assured your English is far superior to the Danish of the nattering nabobs of negativity who jumped up to correct your small mistakes.

Alexej Buergin says:
October 19, 2010 at 1:30 am
> Frank Lasner is a German, uses a decimal-comma but suppresses degrees (0,34°C and 80°N)? Does he type on an American keyboard?
Danish keyboards have a ° key? Gotta get one, I’m tired of typing ° all the time.
Frank Lansner says:
October 19, 2010 at 4:14 am
> I tried to answer at skeptical science, but my answer was removed after 20 minutes….
> So I’m not really sure how to deal with them.
Probably the best way is here. Bigger readership, people who appreciate hearing both sides of the story.

Tom in Florida

crosspatch says:( October 18, 2010 at 10:51 pm )
Your remarks are a subtle reminder of why current living beings use models to see what the future may hold. None of us will be around when these things come to pass. It can be a bit frustrating to know that one will never see the end results and will never know how it all plays out. It’s like losing a good mystery book before your finish reading it. You will never know who done it.
I’m with anna v. Let’s enjoy our current warm period for all that it provides and not worry about a future we really cannot control.

Mods, please correct “chryosphere” with “cryosphere” in Frank’s article.
Frank contributes to a forum in Danish. I’ve noticed an increasing number of Scandinavian names hereabouts, the last few months, so perhaps word is leaking out and the intrepid Scandinavian nature is starting to resurface. I remember Amundsen and Fritjof Nansen and those Norwegians from Telemark who survived the Hardangervidda winter on the stomach contents of reindeer before blowing up the heavy water plant at Rjukan. To say nothing of Hans Andersen creator of “The Emperor’s New Clothes”.
Stay simple. Clear simple science. Think tactics.
I still believe we could do with a wiki-type deconstruction of Skeptical Science.
[REPLY: I believe I have now made the sp corrections… ..bl57~mod]

Frank: thank you for the graphs and your efforts.
I am not (yet) troubled by the “lack of a theory” for this 52 year decline in Arctic summer temperatures.
The theory (the explanation, if you wish for a different term) for the decline in summer temperatures cannot be developed nor analyzed nor refined nor criticized UNTIL it is first “admitted” as information.
But because the CAGW crowd denies any and all evidence that conflicts in any way with their heartfelt, much beloved theory of Mann-caused global warming, they cannot admit this type of evidence exists.
However, remember also that no one – at any level of technology or design or the sciences – needs a complete and robust “peer-reviewed” theory to “use” any new information that is found. We used magnetic compasses for centuries before magnetic theory and the laws of electro-magnetism were written. We built with plumb bobs and strings and water levels for centuries before Newton “discovered” gravity, and long before Einstein “corrected” that theory.
Note also that the continents were still moving even while the “acceptable” theorists denied their motion. The light was traveling just fine in the curved vacuum of space even while “acceptable” theorists promoted the aether that supposedly let it pass. The sun shone just fine with fusion energy even when the British Royal Society claimed “We know all the physics in the world” – before fission, the nucleus and atomic theory, radioactive decay, and fusion were “discovered.”
So, who is more valuable? He who writes about puzzling differences in the observed data? And, at the time he writes about the puzzling differences, admits the puzzle?
Or he who gets funds, adulation, and peer-reviewed articles re-writing only what his peer-reviewed friends want read to to get their peer-reviewed friends to review? 8<)

Wondering Aloud

GISS arctic “measurements” are pure fantasy. SkepticalScience is grasping at straws.

Thanks RAcookPE1978 🙂 It will be nice when science again one days becomes all about exploring the universe and nature.
The Cryosphere correction jan 2007:
Does anyone know how Cryosphere has argumented for this level change they introduced for year 2000? In this year they shifted the sea ice levels with around 0,5 mio sq km for all the later years:
http://hidethedecline.eu/media/GlobalIceExtend/fig4.jpg
Whats the excuse??? Can the Cryosphere-crew defend themselves?
I mean, If you change procedure, methods etc it should be changed for ALL years starting in 1979. You dont change a method starting from year 2000.
Is this well known in the climate debate?
K.R. Frank

LOL,
The same John Cook who very probably posted in my forum almost 3 weeks ago.He seemed to think I would have trouble answering it.He did it cowardly too by using the GUEST forum to make his posting.
I gave him a “stock” reply and he never came back.
http://globalwarmingskeptics.info/forums/thread-928-post-6879.html#pid6879
Calls himself Guesty.

John A

I read skepticalscience.com yesterday.
Apparently there are some people who doubt the Greenhouse effect…because the Greenhouse effect is really easy to understand – and he failed to explain it at all in terms of physics. Possibly because he wasn’t an atmospheric physicist, but more likely because his explanation was couched entirely in terms of condescension.
I was tempted to start a weblog called SkepticalSquared.com (Skeptical about the skeptics of climate skepticism), but the urge to mock abated. It takes effort to comprehend the real atmospheric effect that is commonly mistitled “The Greenhouse Effect” and no-one on skepticalscience can be bothered to learn.
If there were truth in advertising, then it should be called “Straw Men and Condescension”. But there isn’t. So its not.

John Kehr, thank for relevant comment. You mention UAH North polar data that shos warming.
I think the European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts (ECMWF) used by DMI are the best suitable data since they have the best cover.
The further North you go, the poorer coverage in UAH. More: The UAH polar covers down to 65N as I remember which then includes large parts of Scandinavia etc.
The 80N-90N area,not so well covered by UAH is ICE covered. Its obvious, that the Arctic ocean areas without ice cover in later years are much warmer due to water presence. This will affect UAH data, but much less data taken directly from the ice covered 80-90N, the DMI data.
So: UAH does not cover 80N-90N as well as DMI, but in stead they cover huge land and ocean areas further south.
UAH “polar” data cannot reveal the temperature trend 80N-90N nearly as well as the DMI/ECMWF data.
K.R. Frank