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/
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.
Very nice work Frank, I really hope they deserve such an extensive and well founded answer.
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
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.
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.
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.
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
” 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.
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?
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.
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!!!
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
anna v says:
October 18, 2010 at 9:37 pm
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”.
@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.
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<)
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.
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
Lucy Skywalker says:
October 19, 2010 at 5:41 am
“I still believe we could do with a wiki-type deconstruction of Skeptical Science.”
Lucy, this sounds good. In many many ocntext, alarmists thinks they can throug a link to skeptical science and then they have presented a good argument. A few times I have digged in to the arguments used, and its been a laugh. For example their UHI-argumentation where they use measurements in the London region and compare them and cannot see a difference…
England – like Southern California etc. is one big UHI area, so Englan is the poorest place on Earth to examine UHI. Furthermore, London is one of the only cities in the world with a multi million population already in year 1900. So choosing London and the surrounding stations is a JOKE!
Likewise their “argumentation” to support the divergense problem, that is, argumenting why trees should now suddenly show wrong results is a JOKE too.
So yes, perhaps a Skeptical-skeptical-science dictionary on the net…. We all dig up arguments scattered around the net, but it would be smart to collect the problems in skeptical science´s argumentation in one place.
– a good tool.
K.R. Frank
Remeber too that the UAH satellite data is measuring the “atmospheric” temperatures at various elevations up through the troposphere. The DMI 80-90 north latitude instruments directly measure air temperature right at the surface in all weathers and storm conditions.
You’d be hard-pressed to justify a claim that satellite data is “better” at these particular latitudes than surface measurements because of how the orbits pass overhead in a criss-cross pattern near the pole, and because the surface DMI measurements are taken “away from ” what few local cities and airports exist.
At lower altitudes, satellites are much better over wide areas because of their orbits. At populated areas , the UHI and TOS “corruption” (er, correction” of data by GISS makes the satellite a better standard.
rbateman says:
October 18, 2010 at 10:18 pm
“” 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.””
___________Reply;
I think I have an answer to the pole swapping pattern of ice growth, it is because the ecliptic plane transects the orbital planes of the outer planets at an angle, at the points where the two cross and the Earth is North of the planes of the outer planets the Arctic has the greater growth, from 1979 up till they got close to the same, 1993 through 2007, then the earth went South of the outer planet orbital planes, and the Antarctic ice extent is maxing out as the Arctic is struggling along. By 2013 the earth’s ecliptic plane will be back on the planes of Jupiter, Neptune, and Uranus, and we should see the Arctic ice start to peak again over the next 10 or 12 years, while the Antarctic ice will be in decline.
It is not CO2 driving the global climate but the dynamic interactions of the orbital parameters of the whole solar system, and its affect upon the flow of the solar wind as it passes the Earth creating the natural variability patterns that are really driving the climate.
If the planes of all of the planets were the same, the weather and climate would be a lot more stable. If there were no outer planets there would be very few tornadoes, hurricanes or earthquakes. If there were no moon there would be no jet streams and any Rossby waves left would be greatly reduced in variability, and would look much like the laminar flows of Venus, with gradual drizzles in what ever seasonal shifts were left, from coming between the center of the galaxy and the sun. From spring to mid summer moisture coming of the equator, then heavy precipitation moving down from the polar latitudes, till all moisture was snowed out by spring. Large frontal systems with severe weather would no longer exist, with out a moon.
The signature of global warming is, by recent decision, not GLOBAL, but regional warming (and cooling) of large amounts, hence the proposed legitimacy of the term “climate disruption”. By this reasoning, the global ice balance is irrelevant, and has no impact on the warmist hypothesis.
The downward correction of the ice data is once more pro-AGW. How can another adjustment be pro-AGW? Perhaps because there is a correction loop: adjust the land data upward, which means the nearshore oceanic temperatures must go upward, which means that the whole oceanic data must go up, which pushes the area for ice formation back towards the pole, so the error bar of what is ice and what is not should be biased towards “not”.
A strong bias feedback loop is, I believe, a characteristic in CAGW, all based on the intellectual model that the doubt should always be given toward warming, as a back-projection of the Precautionary Principle. This ice situation could be a symptom.
rbateman says:
October 18, 2010 at 10:18 pm
Our little planet likes balance… too bad many refuse to think of our systems in a way that allows influence but allows the internal systems to maintain themselves..
I guess the science is settled….:(
I thought it this was going to be on DMI temperature…? Then it bounces to Arctic sea ice extent, then to global sea ice…
In any case, reading the DMI site, it does not appear that this temperature set is made to compare over the record of years. The model that outputs the curve changes through time, and the input data changes considerably, from only land stations (not many up there, aye) to land, ships and mostly satellite data now.
An easier-to-do, high-payoff value-added feature would be for persons like yourself and Pamela to be allowed by Anthony to go through the archives and flag the best posts in each thread with a star or two. (If WordPress allows that.)
In addition, or instead, it would be nice if it were possible to yellow-highlight good passages, because often there are nuggets in otherwise undistinguished posts. (If WordPress allows that.)
These flags and/or highlights would make it much easier for newcomers to skim the site for the Good Stuff and get up to speed. It would also make it easier to handle drive-by critics who re-raise a point that’s been dealt with before, by referring them to threads they can quickly skim.
Regarding the Skeptical Science website – they enforce their Comments Policy pretty strongly; ad hominem attacks, rants, political (as opposed to scientific) posts, accusations of deception, and repeated off-topic posts (see the link) get deleted. I’ve had a few of my own deleted there when I posted something while riled.
Nobody gets banned. If everything you post falls afoul of the Comments Policy there, though, you _will_ have a lot of postings deleted.
” Ric Werme says:
October 19, 2010 at 4:38 am
Danish keyboards have a ° key? Gotta get one, I’m tired of typing ° all the time.”
I recommend a Swiss keyboard (French and German letters and more like öé°$£çñ, but no Euro and no Skandinavian ö and O).
The worst I have seen is the US one.
But I am waiting for somebody to make a keyboard (software included, keys included) where the user himself can choose the additional signs aviable on the keys. Scientific keys for some, phonetic sign for others, Greek letters for Greeks and mathematicians.
Frank Lansner says:
October 19, 2010 at 6:19 am
Don’t rightly know how much or why CT adjusted 2000 on Northern Sea Ice data.
I do know that an eye for an eye it taken in my ‘de-adjustment’ here:
http://www.robertb.darkhorizons.org/TempGr/global.daily.ice.area.withtrend.jpg
Maybe I took a wee bit more than just one eyeball’s worth. Clumsy me.
And of course all the hub-bub about melting polar ice caps is based on data that goes back 31 years . . . with the assumption that what has happened is a loss of ice when they could have assumed, had they been so inclined, that it was a correction back to normal.
The ice loss meme fits the predisposed ideas held by the scientists writing the scary stories and reaping the windfall of $research funding that goes along with Crisis Politicized Science as practiced by the Warmistas.
“”” JDN says:
October 18, 2010 at 8:33 pm
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. “””
I thought we didn’t do typos here at WUWT. If my German was within two orders of magnitude as good as Frank’s English; then I would not be spreading umlauts all over the place where they don’t belong.
Besides I have a quick typing dylsexia that constantly flips pairs of letters, including space bars; well it does serve to keep Chasmod awake sometimes.
A rule I try to follow is: if a typo or Malapropism results in real miscommunication, then a corrective suggestion is in order, but otherwise, if I think I understand what the writer meant to say; even if (s)he didn’t say it, then I prefer to let it ride.
I’m amazed at how many collected languages we have coming here to WUWT.
As to what the arctic ice is doing, the data that Frank presents seems to say there is a downward trend; and it would be nice to know if that trend rate is just the exit from a past ice age; or is there a modern acceleration. I’m not a fan of replacing oodles of actual real data, with y = m.x + c and suggesting that I have new information; but what I do see in all those transient spikes about the straight line value, is that quite large recovery corrections (to the actual amount of ice) can happen very quickly; as of course can quite large drops. Which I guess suggests that the system is capable of much faster response to conditions than any trend lines suggest. Mother Gaia knows how much ice there is supposed to be, for any possible set of conditions and she always arranges to have exactly that amount; no more and no less.
Alexej Buergin says:
“I am waiting for somebody to make a keyboard (software included, keys included) where the user himself can choose the additional signs aviable on the keys. Scientific keys for some, phonetic sign for others, Greek letters for Greeks and mathematicians.”
I use the Characterpal widget:
http://www.tacowidgets.com/widgets
It has most of what you mentioned.
Thank you Mr Lansner for an interesting article. I wonder why GISS doesn’t use the data from the DMI recorders? Surely actual data is preferable to interpolated data. What’s up with that?
“”” Frank Lansner says:
October 19, 2010 at 3:35 am
Peter and others: Yes im Danish, like Connie Hedegaard, Henrik Svensmark, Bjorn Lomborg, Leif Svalgaard etc. “””
So Frank, Do you know Svend Hendriksen; who I believe works for DMI. He apparently lives on Greenland; out in the boondocks somewhere; and he has kindly sent me all kinds of interesting stuff on ice; both Greenland/Arctic/Antarctic, which seems to be his area of expertise. I guess he can take pictures with some polar orbit satellites and then download them when the bird flies over his Igloo up there.
I guess from time to time they let him go back down to where there is grass growing; but I don’t know where in Denmark that would be (that he lives).
George
Jakers, you write:
“reading the DMI site, it does not appear that this temperature set is made to compare over the record of years. ”
DMI has a green “average line”. This line has an average in the melt period of + 0,9 C.
In 1991 the temperature average was + 1,3 C
In 2010 the value has rather smoothly declined down under the average to a record minimum of +0,3 C.
Why do DMI make a green average line if we should not get the message that 2010 is significantly under average and 1991 significantly over average? Does it mean nothing with such a huge decline trend in data?
Why should anyone bother looking at the DMI data anymore if even such a huge dive in data means “nothing”?
🙂
K.R. Frank
George E. Smith says:
October 19, 2010 at 9:56 am
George E. Smith says:
“”” Frank Lansner says:
October 19, 2010 at 3:35 am
Peter and others: Yes im Danish…
So Frank, Do you know Svend Hendriksen; ”
Oh yes 🙂
True he´s working at DMI, Greenland, and has a lot of great stuff and opinions coming my way too.
K.R. Frank
“rbateman says:
October 19, 2010 at 9:23 am
Don’t rightly know how much or why CT adjusted 2000 on Northern Sea Ice data.
I do know that an eye for an eye it taken in my ‘de-adjustment’ here:
http://www.robertb.darkhorizons.org/TempGr/global.daily.ice.area.withtrend.jpg”
Ha!! Wonderfull DE-justment!
yes, what happens to global sea ice data when the CT year 2000 adjustment is removed?? Nice.
But your de-justment is 1 mio sq km? Or how much did you de-just? perhaps 0,5 mio sq km is more fair 🙂
K.R. Frank
KR says:
“Regarding the Skeptical Science website… Nobody gets banned. If everything you post falls afoul of the Comments Policy there, though, you _will_ have a lot of postings deleted.”
That sounds very similar to the excuse RealClimate uses to censor inconvenient posts by skeptics. It all sounds so reasonable – until you notice that none of your polite but skeptical posts ever get out of moderation.
WUWT is the Gold Standard of free speech, as we see from the number of trolls who take advantage of its policy to “moderate with a light touch.”
Opposing points of view are posted at WUWT. But on most alarmist blogs, to varying degrees skeptical comments are deleted with hifalutin’ excuses for what amounts to censorship. Climate progress, Realclimate, deltoid, etc. are at war with free speech.
Also, every blog that gets more than a few comments is forced to ban a few posters, and anyone who denies that is fibbing. You can’t have an individual constantly spamming and trolling a blog to their heart’s content and driving others away. If John Cook says he never bans anyone, he’s simply not telling the truth. Surprised?
At last count, over the past 3 years there have been close to half a million comments posted at WUWT – and plenty of those come from climate alarmists who are always trying to convince everyone that down is up, war is peace, black is white, ignorance is strength, evil is good, and CO2 causes CAGW. You will notice that they don’t get censored here. Ridiculed by other posters, yes. But censored? No. Their science-challenged views are still posted.
It is our attitude toward free thought and free expression that will determine our fate. There must be no limit on the range of temperate discussion, no limits on thought. No subject must be taboo. No censor must preside at our assemblies.
–William O. Douglas, U.S. Supreme Court Justice, 1952
If it weren’t for censorship, the denizens of alarmist blogs would realize they’re no longer in a self-reinforcing, North Korea-style echo chamber, and they might learn something. Like, for instance, how the scientific method works.
Frank Lansner says:
October 19, 2010 at 10:16 am
Ha!! Wonderfull DE-justment!
yes, what happens to global sea ice data when the CT year 2000 adjustment is removed?? Nice.
But your de-justment is 1 mio sq km? Or how much did you de-just? perhaps 0,5 mio sq km is more fair 🙂
K.R. Frank
I de-adjusted by eyeballing the 2000 on data for a few years, and came up with 1M km^2.
Maybe later on it’s 0.5M km^2, but that would seem rather strange. Why would they slope it?
Smokey
I’d like a keiyboard withh letterrs large enought for clumsyt male fingers-about 25% biggerr than the normal oners 🙂
tonyb
Rbateman, you write
“I de-adjusted by eyeballing the 2000 on data for a few years, and came up with 1M km^2.
Maybe later on it’s 0.5M km^2, but that would seem rather strange. Why would they slope it?”
Yes, the ways of alarmist adjustments are not easy to figure out allways.
But the more i look at the Cryosphere adjustment, the more it strikes me:
Cryosphere must have som very interesting story for WHAT ON EARTH happened in year 2000 to allow for this 1 mio sq km adjustment in year 2000?
http://hidethedecline.eu/media/GlobalIceExtend/fig4.jpg
I think this needs attention.
LUCY 😉
Yes perhaps there are more Scandinavians active in the climate debate now, but as i remember you have used my stuff a few times before 🙂
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/01/30/co2-temperatures-and-ice-ages/
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/12/17/the-co2-temperature-link/
K.R. Frank
Fred says:
October 19, 2010 at 9:28 am
And of course all the hub-bub about melting polar ice caps is based on data that goes back 31 years . . .
Sea ice area, since 1900:
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/seasonal.extent.1900-2007.jpg
Sea ice extent, 1951 to 2000, and Sea Ice record of Newfoundland from 1810:
http://www.socc.ca/cms/en/socc/seaIce/pastSeaIce.aspx
Frank says:
Why do DMI make a green average line if we should not get the message that 2010 is significantly under average and 1991 significantly over average? Does it mean nothing with such a huge decline trend in data? Why should anyone bother looking at the DMI data anymore if even such a huge dive in data means “nothing”?
I think it is informational, as it is not a real data set or a continuous observational record. There is probably a good reason why DMI does not do that analysis with their model output.
Frank Lansner says:
October 19, 2010 at 3:35 am
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.
______
Hi Frank!
I’m Swedish – living on the B(w)estcoast and do back/forth fish for lobsters [the real good ones…] and I fully agree with your statement on the Swedish [Scandinavian] lull-lulling + brainwashing of the populase, it’s really dreadful! [apart from economically disasterous]. The [Swedish] MSM, including the so called ‘public service’ [TV & radio] are so much more DDR/North Korea than anyone on this blog could ever imagine! I’m sorry, my Country hurts me!
(We do however, always, check the DMI forecast before going for the lobsters… plenty much better than the ‘SMHI’)
Brgds/TJ
Looking at the full year DMI temperatures, there’s a 0.376 degrees C per decade increase in yearly average temperatures. That’s 1.88 C rise in yearly average temperature over the last 50 years.
The summer average just above 0C is only indicative of measuring temperatures just over ice – energy that would otherwise raise the air temperature is going into _melting_ that ice. So the temps are clipped to just above zero, at least as long as there’s summer ice present.
The rising average temperature means that more time is spent at zero, more time melting ice.
Ignoring the clipping of summer temps to just above zero and not showing the yearly temperature trends is (IMO) a pretty appalling misrepresentation of the data.
I have been going back and forth with Tamino on sea ice:
http://tamino.wordpress.com/2010/10/15/go-ice-go-going-going-gone/#comment-45030
and since NSIDC does not offer a Global Monthly Sea Ice Extent Anomalies Chart, like they do for the Northern Hemisphere;
http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/n_plot_hires.png
and Southern Hemisphere;
http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/s_plot_hires.png
I figured that I’d take a shot at it. I used NSIDC’s corresponding data;
ftp://sidads.colorado.edu/DATASETS/NOAA/G02135/Sep/N_09_area.txt
ftp://sidads.colorado.edu/DATASETS/NOAA/G02135/Sep/S_09_area.txt
and first recreated the NSIDC Northern and Southern Sea Ice Extent Anomalies Sept 2010 charts:
http://i54.tinypic.com/30uby9d.jpg
http://i53.tinypic.com/nbxfs6.jpg
to check the data and methodology. I then merged the two data sets and created a chart for Global Sea Ice Extent Anomalies Sept 2010:
http://oi55.tinypic.com/2lmq4qw.jpg
Based on my calculations, the slopes of the trendlines are as follows:
Northern Sea Ice Extent Anomalies Sept 2010: Slope = -11.3% per decade
Southern Sea Ice Extent Anomalies Sept 2010: Slope = 0.8% per decade
Global Sea Ice Extent Anomalies Sept 2010: Slope = -2.6% per decade
If anyone would care to check my math, it would be most welcome. Also if Walt or Julienne are passing by, I really think you should add a Global Sea Ice Extent Anomaly chart to the right side of this page:
http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/
Jakers,
I wrote:
“Why do DMI make a green average line if we should not get the message that 2010 is significantly under average and 1991 significantly over average? ….
Why should anyone bother looking at the DMI data anymore if even such a huge dive in data means “nothing”? ”
You wrote:
“I think it is informational, as it is not a real data set or a continuous observational record. There is probably a good reason why DMI does not do that analysis with their model output.”
So in the summer when we daily checkout DMI temperatures for 80-90N, we should not care if they are far under average or far above average????
Well, you are entitled to you opninion, its a free world. Would you have said the same if this years DMI melting period temperatures where very high?
I live in Denmark, and these DMI data used to be taken quite seriously. In previous years when for example the melting period started a little early or late, this is something we heard about in the medias! This DMI melting period is indeed something that used to be taken serious. But this year, when the temperatures of the melting period is even record low, suddenly we have heard nothing about it in the Danish media.
ThomasJ, you write:
“The [Swedish] MSM, including the so called ‘public service’ [TV & radio] are so much more DDR/North Korea than anyone on this blog could ever imagine! I’m sorry, my Country hurts me!”
My country “hurts me” too. Its really grotesk how people with journalist background just eats even the most obvious warmist propaganda raw and sends it out to scare the poor Danes, Swedes etc etc. Its definetely my motivation: Peoble has their life qualitu reduced by this [SNIIIP] media coverage. Some dare hardly get children, its really so terrible. But it has the effect, that as a sceptic, everytime I hear this TV-propaganda i get up from my chair and start writing a new article 🙂 I simply cant live with this.
K.R. Frank
KR
I compared summer temperature trends from DMI (which DO originate from the 80N-90N area) with GISS temperature trends (thats just projected land temperatures!):
DMI trend 1991-2009 80-90N summer:
http://hidethedecline.eu/media/GlobalIceExtend/fig1.jpg
with
GISS trend 1991-2009 80-90N summer:
http://hidethedecline.eu/media/GlobalIceExtend/fig2.jpg
There IS a huge mismatch, and it IS 100% FAIR to raise this issue!! Nothing Appaling in this at all, please!
IF i had said that these DMI summer trends where indicator of the general (yearly) trend in the 80N-90N THEN it would be appalling. I used the example to show a clear mismatch between methods. I also in my original article showed a mismatch example from South America and the rest of the world how extremely poor GISS land temperature projection matches other sources of SST data than DMI, that is: i also showed that GISS ocean temperatures from land matches awfully with Hadcrut SST!
Now, unless your own stand here should be called “appalling” i think you should start considdering the 3 scientific issues actually raised here:
1) WHY is there such a mismatch between DMI and GISS for summer temperatures 80-90N ?
2) WHY do DMI summer temperature (melt season) go from far above average to far below average from 1991-2010 at the same time that the ice cover has been reduced?
3) And then from this last writing if you could please answer: WHY does Cryosphere from year 2000 strongly reduce their Arctic ice cover data??
Please try to answer these core questions in stead of claiming i say things i dont say, and then call it appaling. Please focus on what I actually write.
K.R. Frank
Hi Just the Facts!
Nice work!
Try to see fig 6 and 7 in the article above, the ones from Jeff Ids article.
Hes doing a little like what you do, just more on day to day data it seems. I think your idea to use such an alternative global ice indicator on WUWT is fine.
K.R. Frank
It says right on their page:
Calculation of the Arctic Mean Temperature
The daily mean temperature of the Arctic area north of the 80th northern parallel is estimated from the average of the 00z and 12z analysis for all model grid points inside that area.
The ERA40 reanalysis data set from ECMWF, has been applied to calculate daily mean temperatures for the period from 1958 to 2002,
from 2002 to 2006 data from the global NWP model T511 is used and
from 2006 to present the T799 model data are used.
Earlier info on DMI discussed the changes in data put in the models.
In light of all those temporal changes in data and methods, I don’t see how the graph in Fig. 1 can be seen as a true reflection of the actual temperature changes through time, especially in decimal degrees.
Frank Lansner says:
October 19, 2010 at 12:40 am
“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??”
An explanation for the behavior at summer time temperatures at 80-90N was given at Skeptical Science through a communication from the DMI:
“From the link to WUWT, that you’ve attached below[*], it seems that a cooling temperature trend in the Arctic summer is present, throughout the past approximately 10 years. Where ‘summer’ is defined as the period where the +80N mean temperature is above 273K.
However, I very much doubt that a simple conclusion can be drawn from that, as there are complicating aspects to that analysis, e.g.:
1) The surface in the +80N area is more or less fully snow and ice covered all year, so the temperature is strongly controlled by the melting temperature of the surface. I.e. the +80N temperature is bound to be very close to the melt point of the surface snow and ice (273K) and the variability is therefore very small, less than 0.5K. I am sure you will find a much clearer warming trend in the same analysis applied to the winter period. The winter period is more crucial for the state of the Arctic sea ice, as this is the period where the ice is produced and the colder the winter the thicker and more robust the sea ice will become.
2) The +80N temperature data after 2002 are based on the operational global deterministic models at ECMWF, at any given time. Before 2002 the ERA 40 reanalysis is used. I.e. the +80N temperatures are based on 4 different models, the model used for the ERA 40 data set and the operational models T511, T799 and T1279. The point is that there can be a temperature bias in one or more of the models, that can cause the lower temperature level since approximately 2002, where the shift between the ERA40 data and the operational model data occur in the WUWT-plot from the link below.”
So focusing on this particular corner of the data is not really instructive and significant. Why would one want to do that? Because they want to get away from the idea that warming of the Arctic is an important and significant phenomenon.
Frank also writes:
“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”
The truth in science is not determined by some false equivalence or fairness. The summer ice extent is an important driver of global warming. Looking at the global ice extent, you are balancing the winter sea ice in the Southern Hemisphere, which reflects little sunlight because there is little sun in the winter, with the summer sea ice extent in the Northern Hemisphere, which does have an impact on the reflection of sunlight. Summer ice pretty much disappears in the Southern Hemisphere so that is not a factor in global warming at the present time. That is the reason attention is appropriately focused on summer sea ice in the Arctic.
I am surprised that someone who blogs as much as you do on climate wouldn’t understand that, but it is probably a matter of avoiding cognitive dissonance.
Jakers,
so you dont think that a trend going from the warmest ever anomaly for DMI melt temperatures 80N-90N in 1991 to the coldest ever in 2010 indicates anything at all. Why do DMI publish them if the biggest change possible indicates nothing?
Yes, the DMI data is stitched – so when DMI data gives a huge cold trend that you did not expect (?) you simply assume DMI doesn’t know how do a stitch?
But a “DMI-cant-stitch-when-data-are-not-what-I-expected” approach fails too because around 80% of the dive 1991-2010 happened before the stitch, 2002.
So, you HAVE to find another way to get rid of data not in line with the global warming mantra 🙂
There must be a way, right?
K.R. Frank
Eadler,
When focussing at summer conditions for sea ice as you recommend, im not sure why you would think its useless to also focus on the summer temperatures in the Arctic as I did to begin with in the article.
But since some readers are very sure that only all seasons, full year data can be of any interest what so ever, then I looked at full year data too.
your argument is that Summer ice is more important for the Earths Albedo than winter ice and thus that Arctic ice is more important than global sea ice.
This I find this to be oversimplified, but my first comment is:
One of the most important reasons to talk about sea ice in the climate debate is that the sea ice was supposed to back the argument that the earth is warming alarmingly.
If the global sea ice does not really show an alarming development, this fundamental argument becomes weak. Therefore it is relevant to talk about global sea ice.
Then a from a single point of view you claim that albedo from northern hemisphere is much much more important than the albedo effect on the southern hemisphere. I understand fully that the Arctic ocean –I if it was really empty for ice for example as in 2007 or worse, and for longer time perhaps, then you have a point. This does not happen in SH, obviously.
But…
A huge area around Antarctic is either water or ice. This has a HUGE effect on albedo. (And since the sun melts the ice in the spring time, the sun obviously reaches the areas enough to say that this albedo is important too, especially due to the huge areas we are talking about.
The corresponding area around the Arctic is land area and changes in Sea ice has no say.
And sea ice in SH reaches up to around 60S, whereas sea ice in NH rarely go that far south. So im not sure that you have a point, really.
But as I said, if sea ice, globally does not really confirm something dramatic, then its hard to use sea ice as argument for a warming globe. You can only use it to say that oscillations perhaps move heat from south to north. A little like the AMO indicates.
K.R Frank
I’m saying I don’t think you can use the “data” in Fig. 1 for any temporal analysis at all. It is not scientifically valid. It wasn’t generated correctly to do that, and DMI knows that, which is why they don’t do it. Sources change through time, models change through time, and there is no so-called “stitching” mentioned by DMI anywhere as they don’t intend the figures to be turned into numbers and used as a long-term data set.
KR Frank wrote:
“But…
A huge area around Antarctic is either water or ice. This has a HUGE effect on albedo. (And since the sun melts the ice in the spring time, the sun obviously reaches the areas enough to say that this albedo is important too, especially due to the huge areas we are talking about.
The corresponding area around the Arctic is land area and changes in Sea ice has no say.
And sea ice in SH reaches up to around 60S, whereas sea ice in NH rarely go that far south. So im not sure that you have a point, really.
But as I said, if sea ice, globally does not really confirm something dramatic, then its hard to use sea ice as argument for a warming globe. You can only use it to say that oscillations perhaps move heat from south to north. A little like the AMO indicates.
K.R Frank”
It seems that you still don’t understand what is happening, and why the focus is on the Arctic Sea Ice extent, and the Antarctic is ignored.
The Southern Hemisphere sea ice has always totally disappeared in the Summer time, so its contribution to absorption of sunlight, is a constant factor in time. This means that it is not affecting time dependence of global absorption of the sun’s light. The Northern Hemisphere Ice is decreasing its area/extent with time, in recent years, thus amplifying global warming. This is why it is of interest.
eadler says: October 20, 2010 at 7:56 pm
“The Southern Hemisphere sea ice has always totally disappeared in the Summer time”
No it doesn’t, note where the charts bottom out each year:
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/seaice.area.antarctic.png
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/seaice.recent.antarctic.png
Eadler, come on.
You write”The Southern Hemisphere sea ice has always totally disappeared in the Summer time, so its contribution to absorption of sunlight, is a constant factor in time. ”
You are only adressing conditions concerning the minimum… how about the maximum???? Thats what i have used time to write you about, please read my last answer again, and take your time before answering like this.
K.R. Frank